From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. High Desert State Prison

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 21, 2008
No. CIV S-06-0947 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0947 JAM GGH P.

November 21, 2008


ORDER


On August 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a pleading stating that prison officials had denied him access to his legal property since May 12, 2008. Plaintiff stated that he had been denied access to his other property, including stamps and reading glasses, which he required to litigate this action. On September 8, 2008, the court ordered defendants to file a response to these claims.

In the October 2, 2008, response, defendants stated that plaintiff was issued all of his personal property and some of his legal property on July 11, 2008. On October 2, 2008, plaintiff was issued the remainder of his personal property. Based on defendants' representations, on October 10, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's August 14, 2008, request for his property as moot.

On November 17, 2008, plaintiff filed a request for sanctions claiming that he has not received all of his property. Plaintiff claims that on October 3, 2008, he was told that he could not have his personal property. Attached to plaintiff's pleading as an exhibit is a copy of a rules violation report dated August 11, 2008. This report states that plaintiff was assessed 180 days loss of access to personal property from August 11, 2008, to February 6, 2009.

Plaintiff does not appear to be claiming in his November 17, 2008, pleading that he is being denied access to his legal property. Rather, he claims that he is still being denied access to his personal property.

The court observes that in September 2008, plaintiff filed three pleadings with the court. In October 2008, plaintiff also filed three pleadings. Based on plaintiff's ability to file these pleadings, plaintiff's claim that he cannot litigate this action without access to his personal property does not appear to be well supported. Before the court orders a further response from defendants, plaintiff shall file a short declaration addressing the specific missing personal property he requires to litigate this action. The court will not order defendants to respond to claims by plaintiff regarding missing personal property that he does not need to litigate this case. Plaintiff shall also address why he was able to file six pleadings in two months despite not having access to his personal property.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file the further briefing described above.


Summaries of

Miller v. High Desert State Prison

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 21, 2008
No. CIV S-06-0947 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008)
Case details for

Miller v. High Desert State Prison

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST MILLER, Plaintiff, v. HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 21, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0947 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2008)