Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01103-2/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

THOMAS JOSEPH MELGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL WESP, Deputy District Attorney,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1103 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff consented to proceed before the 

undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On June 27, 2016, plaintiff was granted an 

extension of time in which to submit the documents required by the June 6, 2016 order, and his 

motion for discovery was denied without prejudice. During the pendency of plaintiff’s previous 

requests, and prior to the issuance of the June 27, 2016 order, plaintiff filed two more motions for 

discovery and a motion requesting factual findings concerning charged and uncharged offenses, 

as well as lesser included offenses, and what offense should have been charged. (ECF Nos. 12-

14.) For the reasons stated in the June 27, 2016 order, plaintiff’s motions are denied without 

prejudice.

In addition, plaintiff claims that he “submitted his request for in forma pauperis to CDCR 

with no response for two weeks,” and seeks a court order to deduct 20% from his inmate trust 

Case 2:16-cv-01103-KJN Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 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

account to avoid dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 17 at 1.) Plaintiff is advised that he must 

provide the documents required by the June 6, 2016 order before the court can issue an order 

addressing deductions from his inmate trust account. Plaintiff must ensure that he has followed 

the appropriate prison procedure to obtain the certified documents, and, if an inordinate amount 

of time has passed without a response, he may avail himself of the prison grievance procedure 

concerning such request. Plaintiff has been granted an extension of time until late August in 

which to submit the documents, so he is not in imminent peril of having this case dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s June 27, 2016 request is denied.

Finally, the record reflects that plaintiff has filed nine requests and motions from June 21, 

2016, to June 27, 2016. Plaintiff is formally cautioned that he may suffer restricted access to the 

court where it is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. See DeLong 

v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th 

Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is admonished that this court views the number of motions filed to date as 

excessive and that consideration will be given to restricted court access if plaintiff does not 

exercise appropriate restraint henceforth.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 23, 2016 motions (ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14) are denied without prejudice; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2016 request (ECF No. 17) is denied.

Dated: July 1, 2016

/melg1103.den

Case 2:16-cv-01103-KJN Document 21 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 2