Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02545/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02545-12/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

09cv2545

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD YOUNG, CDCR #F-44590,

Plaintiff,

v.

LARRY SMALLS, et al.,

Defendants.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-CV-2545-DMS (JMA)

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 139]; (2) SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc.

No. 141]; (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR

ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY [Doc. No.

142]; AND (4) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COPIES

OF CHAMBERS RULES [Doc. No.

142]

Presently before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff Howard

Young: a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 139), a renewed motion for summary

judgment (Doc. No. 141), and a motion for an order for access to an adequate law

library and for copies of chambers rules (Doc. No. 144).

I. Motion for Reconsideration

On November 18, 2011 nunc pro tunc November 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion

for reconsideration of the Court’s October 27, 2011 Order denying his motions for

appointment of counsel and for expert witnesses.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for

Case 3:09-cv-02545-DMS-KSC Document 145 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 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

1

The Court clarifies for the record that its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint expert

witnesses (see Doc. No. 134) was without prejudice. 

2 09cv2545

reconsideration. Rule 60(b), to which Plaintiff cites, allows a party to seek relief from “a

final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect,” “newly discovered evidence,” “fraud,” or because “the judgment is

void,” “the judgment has been satisfied,” or for “any other reason that justifies relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), however, does expressly permit motions

for reconsideration. Under Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party applying for reconsideration must set

forth “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not

exist, or were not shown” upon the prior application. Civ. L.R. 7.1(i)(1). 

Here, Plaintiff has shown no “newly discovered evidence” nor has he demonstrated that any “new or different facts or circumstances” warrant reconsideration of the

Court’s October 27, 2011 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

1

 

II. Motion for Summary Judgment

On September 27, 2011 nunc pro tunc September 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a 

motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 126. During a Case Management Conference

held on November 1, 2011, Plaintiff advised the Court that he wished to withdraw the

motion and would file a notice of withdrawal of the motion without prejudice. See Nov.

1, 2011 Order at 6 [Doc. No. 136]. Instead of filing a notice of withdrawal of the motion,

however, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for summary judgment as well as a notice of

intent to file points and authorities in support of his motion. Doc. Nos. 141, 142. 

The Court hereby issues the following briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s renewed

motion for summary judgment:

1. Plaintiff shall file a memorandum of points and authorities and all documents supporting his motion for summary judgment on or before January 13, 2012.

2. Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion

on or before January 27, 2012.

3. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief on or before February 10, 2012. The motion

Case 3:09-cv-02545-DMS-KSC Document 145 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 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

3 09cv2545

will be deemed submitted as of that date.

III. Motion for an Order for Adequate Access to an Adequate Law Library and

for Copies of Chambers Rules

Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to “provide Plaintiff with adequate access to an

adequate law library of at least 3-4 hours per week, of which the law library will include

access to updated, relevant case law citations, the ability to obtain reasonable copies,

and a paging system.” Pl.’s Mot., Doc. No. 144, at 2. The Court previously denied

Plaintiff’s request for an order granting law library access on November 1, 2010. See

Doc. No. 39. 

Prison officials are required to “assist inmates in the preparation and filing of

meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate

assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828

(1977). The right of access to the courts, however, only requires that prisoners have

the capability of bringing challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement. Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356-57 (1996). The right of access to the courts is only a right

to present claims to the court, and not a right to discover claims or to litigate them

effectively once filed. Id. at 354. 

Here, as before, Plaintiff does not provide any indication that his alleged limited

access to the law library has had any actual impact on his ability to adequately access

the court or to comply with court deadlines. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order

granting “adequate access to an adequate law library” access is DENIED. Plaintiff’s

request for copies of the “Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures of Judge Dana M. Sabraw”

and for “Judge Adler’s Chambers Rules,” is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall mail

copies of these documents to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2011

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02545-DMS-KSC Document 145 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 3