Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01028/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01028-16/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-1028 GEB GGH P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s June 6, 2012, motion

to access his legal materials and his June 18, 2012, motion to compel, which is essentially the

same as his motion to access his legal materials. Plaintiff has submitted numerous filings

regarding the same issues of the instant filings, regarding access to the law library, his legal

materials and non defendant guards preventing him from litigating his various cases. The court

has already issued three orders (Doc. 63, 67, 105) regarding these issues. 

Plaintiff has been transferred to a new prison and states he is not being provided

access to his legal materials for the instant case and his other cases and different guards are now

retaliating against him. As with his past motions plaintiff has again failed to describe why he

needs access to all of his legal materials, what legal work is currently pending and how not

1

Case 2:08-cv-01028-GEB-AC Document 122 Filed 07/11/12 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

accessing his legal materials has prevented him from litigating this case. Instead, plaintiff just

generally states he is being denied access to his legal materials which is preventing him from

litigating this case. After reviewing plaintiff’s exhibits it appears he is demanding access to his

27 boxes of legal materials as he has a settlement conference in another case. As plaintiff has not

provided specific details and it does not appear to concern this case, the motion are denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 119,

120) are denied.

DATED: July 10, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH: AB

rodr1028.ord

2

Case 2:08-cv-01028-GEB-AC Document 122 Filed 07/11/12 Page 2 of 2