Opinion
1:19-cv-01508-AWI-EPG (PC)
06-11-2021
L.C. CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. M. MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE REPLY TO THE WARDEN OF KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT
L.C. Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion under the All Writs Act. (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff alleges that he does have access to the law library, but he is not able to use books. Instead, Plaintiff appears to allege that his institution of confinement has an email system, but that system is not working for him and he is unable to “research [his] case.” (Id. at 1).
On May 19, 2021, the Warden filed a response. (ECF No. 76). The Warden does not contest that the email system is not working for Plaintiff. Instead, the Warden states that “Plaintiff still has access to the law library computers and printed materials which he may use to conduct legal research.” (Id. at 2).
The Court will require Plaintiff to file a reply to the Warden's response related solely to the issue of whether Plaintiff can access the law library to do legal research, including law library computers and printed materials. If Plaintiff does not believe he is able to do legal research at the law library, Plaintiff should explain what legal resources he is being denied access that he needs in order to prosecute this action. If Plaintiff is alleging that he is being denied access to the law library altogether, Plaintiff should attach to his reply any requests he made for law library access, as well as the institution's responses.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of service of this order to file a reply to the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison's response to Plaintiffs motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.