Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01091/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01091-6/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER – 1 

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

 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. BRACKETT, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C08-1091RAJ 

ORDER ON MOTIONS 

This matter comes before the court on two motions from Plaintiff Marvin Glenn 

Hollis. The first is a motion (Dkt. # 45) to grant him physical access to the law library at 

California State Prison – Corcoran, where he is currently incarcerated. The second is a 

motion (Dkt. # 46) for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment 

motion. 

Mr. Hollis’s motion regarding the law library raises two concerns. First, he asks 

to be granted physical access to the prison’s law library. Second, he asks that the court 

order library officials to make photocopies of his opposition to the summary judgment 

motion. Defendants have not responded to this motion. The court notes that Mr. Hollis 

filed a similar motion in another civil action, and the presiding judge granted and denied 

it in part. Hollis v. High Desert State Prison, No. 2:08-cv-2810 KJN P (Dkt. # 75, Jun. 

24, 2010 order). That order observed that Mr. Hollis has been denied physical access to 

the law library because he threatened library staff, but that he was granted access to the 

library through its paging system. On this sparse record, the court has no basis to order 

Case 2:08-cv-01091-JAM-KJN Document 48 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – 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

officials to grant him physical access to the library. If Mr. Hollis contends that the lack 

of physical access to the library has hampered his ability to oppose the pending summary 

judgment motion, he shall explain why in opposing the motion. 

The prior order also explained, however, that the prison library has a policy of 

refusing to photocopy legal documents that are more than 100 pages in length without a 

court order. That order took a dim view of this policy. 

This court takes a dim view of the policy as well. When Defendants filed their 

summary judgment motion, the motion and associated documentation totaled more than 

250 pages. Many of those pages were likely unnecessary, but it is not at all uncommon 

for litigants to file much more than is necessary to support their motions. Requiring Mr. 

Hollis to obtain a court order to file an opposition that is even 40% as long as the motion 

he is opposing is a significant obstacle to his access to the courts. Were this court’s 

resources greater, it might well hold hearings to address the prison’s photocopy policy. 

The court’s resources are limited, however, and its primary concern in this case is moving 

it toward its resolution. Accordingly, the court orders library officials to permit Mr. 

Hollis to make three copies of his opposition to the summary judgment motion. The 

court encourages Mr. Hollis to shorten his opposition. 

The court now considers Mr. Hollis’s motion to extend his deadline for filing an 

opposition to the summary judgment motion. Mr. Hollis’s motions suggest that his 

summary judgment opposition is ready to be filed, but for his inability to copy it. His 

motion for extension of time to file that opposition, however, was filed more than 9 days 

after the opposition was due. He offers no explanation for that delay. The court has 

discretion to refuse to permit him to oppose the motion. Only the court’s strong 

preference for resolving matters on their merits leads it to grant Mr. Hollis’s belated 

motion. The court cautions Mr. Hollis that it will not look favorably on future requests 

for extensions of time that are not themselves timely filed. 

Case 2:08-cv-01091-JAM-KJN Document 48 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – 3 

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

The court rules as follows. Mr. Hollis’s motion for access to the prison law library 

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court will not order that Mr. Hollis be 

granted physical access to the law library. It does, however, order library officials to 

provide him with three copies of his opposition to the summary judgment motion. The 

court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, and orders Mr. Hollis to file his 

opposition no later than August 27, 2010. 

DATED this 6th day of August, 2010. 

AThe Honorable Richard A. Jones 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:08-cv-01091-JAM-KJN Document 48 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3