Opinion
No. Civ S-05-1531 LKK PAN P.
August 3, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on August 1, 2005. Since that time, plaintiff has filed approximately thirty-five motions or other requests for court action. The court is unable to address, in an orderly fashion, the motions he has previously submitted before he files several more.
Plaintiff has filed a document entitled "third request for production of documents." Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue.
On July 14, 2006, and July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed his fifth and sixth motions for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's previous motions were filed on June 2, 2006, May 1, 2006, August 11, 2005, and August 1, 2005. All requests were denied. In light of those orders, plaintiff's July 14, 2006, and July 28, 2006, motions for the appointment of counsel will be denied.
Plaintiff is hereby formally cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is cautioned 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.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's July 13, 2006, third request for production of documents will be placed in the court file and disregarded.
2. Plaintiff's July 14, 2006, and July 28, 2006, motions for the appointment of counsel are denied.
3. Plaintiff is cautioned that continued excessive motion practice will result in restrictions on his permission to file pleadings in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is further cautioned that failure to comply with any portion of this or any other order of this court will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.