Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00444-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL TREGLIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0444 FCD EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for an order directing prison officials to

provide him with additional time in the law library. For the reasons explained below, the request

for additional time in the law library is denied. 

Plaintiff essentially asserts that the time he is permitted in the law library is so inadequate

that he is being denied access to the courts. In order to show such a denial, plaintiff must

demonstrate that he was denied necessary assistance in preparing and filing a habeas corpus

petition or section 1983 complaint, such as meaningful access to an adequate law library or

assistance from persons trained in the law, and that the deprivation actually injured his habeas or

section 1983 litigation efforts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 354, 356 (1996). The docket

in this case belies any notion that plaintiff’s time in the prison law library has been inadequate 

Case 2:07-cv-00444-EFB Document 20 Filed 08/14/07 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

2

under Lewis. On May 22, 2007, the court found that plaintiff’s second amended complaint was

sufficient to state a claim against some defendants but not against others. The court explained

the deficiencies of the complaint and gave plaintiff time either to file an amended complaint or to

proceed against the defendants against whom he had stated claims for relief. On June 8, 2007,

plaintiff filed both a third amended complaint and a request for a blank summons to enable him

to submit all papers necessary for service of process. Also on June 8, 2007, plaintiff requested

an order directing prison officials to permit him more time in the law library to enable him

effectively to litigate this action. On June 29, 2007, the court found that it was not clear how

plaintiff wished to proceed, directed the Clerk of the Court to send to plaintiff the materials

necessary for him to effect service of process, and gave plaintiff time to submit these materials. 

The court also warned plaintiff that if he did not submit the materials, the court would construe

this as a choice to proceed on the June 8, 2007, third amended complaint. On July 26, 2007,

plaintiff filed a request that the June 8, 2007, complaint be disregarded and a fourth amended

complaint. 

The court finds that plaintiff has stated claims against various defendants, advised

plaintiff of the deficiencies of other claims and explained these deficiencies to him. Plaintiff

does not explain how the limits on his time in the law library have hindered his ability to pursue

claims that this court has identified and explained to plaintiff. Thus, the court finds that he has

not demonstrated that his right of access to the courts has been denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 8, 2007, request for an order directing

prison officials to give him more time in the law library is denied.

Dated: August 14, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00444-EFB Document 20 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2