Opinion
2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP (PC)
05-22-2023
MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, v. J. BAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On the court's motion, I set several pending motions for a hearing via Zoom. ECF No. 156.
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that he be allowed to appear in person. ECF No. 160. Plaintiff states that he will have difficulty with a video hearing because the video room at Mule Creek State Prison is not conducive to communication for an inmate like him who has hearing and mobility impairments. My standard procedure for these types of hearing is to conduct them via video, and I have conducted several such appearance with inmates at Mule Creek without issue. Accordingly, I will deny plaintiff's motion. If plaintiff encounters difficulty at the hearing, I will terminate the hearing and rule on the briefs without oral argument.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appear in person, ECF No. 160, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.