Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00904-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS L. GOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. WALTERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00904-DAD-JDP

ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

ECF No. 29

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF FILE A RESPONSE 

TO THE COURT’S SCREENING ORDER 

WITHIN 60 DAYS 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR ADA ACCOMODATIONS

ECF No. 30

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS

ECF No. 31

ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE SEND 

PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET, 

THE COURT’S SCREENING ORDER, AND THE 

RECENT EXTENSION ORDER

ECF Nos. 15, 22

Plaintiff Thomas L. Goff is a current or former state prisoner proceeding without counsel 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 

Case 1:18-cv-00904-KES-HBK Document 32 Filed 04/13/20 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

2020, the court ordered that plaintiff show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure 

to prosecute. ECF No. 29. On April 2, 2020, plaintiff responded and suggested that he may have 

missed some court orders, including the court’s screening order. ECF No 31. Plaintiff also 

requested additional copies of some docket materials. Plaintiff’s request is granted, and the order 

to show cause is discharged. The court will give plaintiff sixty days from the date of this order to 

respond to the court’s screening order. If plaintiff does not respond, the court will recommend 

that this case be dismissed.

Plaintiff has also requested Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accommodations 

from the court. The ADA does not apply to the federal judiciary. See, e.g., United States v. 

Wishart, 146 F. App’x 171, 173 (9th Cir. 2005). The policy of the court is nonetheless to provide 

some accommodations (such as hearing aids), but we do not believe those limited 

accommodations are relevant for plaintiff’s case. (While plaintiff does not specify what 

accommodations he seeks, he appears to seek general help preparing court filings.) 

Accordingly:

1. The order to show cause, ECF No. 29, is discharged. 

2. Within 60 days of the date of this order, plaintiff must file a response to the court’s 

screening order 

3. Plaintiff’s miscellaneous requests, ECF No. 31, are granted. The clerk’s office must 

send plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet, the screening order, ECF No. 15, and the recent 

extension order, ECF No. 22. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for ADA accommodations, ECF No. 30, is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:18-cv-00904-KES-HBK Document 32 Filed 04/13/20 Page 2 of 2