Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00960-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WILLIAM KNIPP, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0960-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a pleading requesting court assistance in obtaining preferred legal 

user status in the library. He states that he is “being denied full access” to the law library, that his 

appeals regarding this issue have “gone unanswered,” and that he would like to research “issues 

to better establish his claims.” ECF No. 31.

As plaintiff notes, this action is only in the discovery phase. Although plaintiff must 

timely complete any discovery, he has not shown what legal research he must conduct to do so. 

Further, he has not shown that he was facing an imminent court deadline requiring priority 

treatment for library privileges when he filed his request nor has he shown that court intervention 

is otherwise warranted. Accordingly, the instant request for assistance in obtaining preferred 

legal user status in the library will be denied. Should plaintiff’s lack of “full” access to the library 

interfere with his ability to meet a court-imposed deadline in the future, he may request that the 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

court grant him an extension of time, explaining why he has been unable to meet the deadline in 

the time provided. If plaintiff seeks additional time on the grounds he did not have adequate 

access to the library, he must indicate why he is unable to meet the deadline without such access, 

what specific requests he has made for more time in the library, and how prison officials have 

responded to those requests. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 21, 2015 motion 

(ECF No. 31) is denied. 

DATED: December 1, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00960-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2