(HC) Brim v. Thompson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRIAN KEITH BRIM, No. 2:19-cv-2284 KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER P. THOMPSON, WARDEN, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se. On June 5, 2020, petitioner filed a motion to compel his institution to allow petitioner more time in the law library. Petitioner claims that he is only allowed to use the law library two to three hours every two to three weeks.

20 Moreover, he claims that only three inmates use the law library, so he should be allowed more law library access.1 22 On February 14, 2020, respondent filed an eight-page motion to dismiss that challenges the petition on jurisdictional grounds, as well as the substance of petitioner’s due process challenges under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Petitioner has been granted two extensions of time to oppose the motion; the first, for thirty days, and the second, for sixty days, 1 Petitioner also complains that prisoners use IBM typewriters that are dinosaurs. However, petitioner is advised that he is not required to typewrite pleadings. He may neatly handwrite them.

MASS COTIING IN RAMVUETIOCTIL Bi POC here POY ee | which expires on June 20, 2020.

2 While the undersigned is sympathetic to petitioner’s reduced access to the law library | given the current COVID-19 pandemic, petitioner fails to explain what additional research he | needs to complete in order to oppose the motion to dismiss. The record reflects that petitioner || was present during the prison disciplinary hearing, and therefore is familiar with the facts || supporting his due process challenge. He has had almost four months in which to prepare his | opposition.

8 The undersigned finds that petitioner’s request for increased law library time is not well- | supported. In an abundance of caution, petitioner is granted additional time in which to file his || opposition. However, petitioner is cautioned that no further extensions of time will be granted | absent a showing of substantial cause.

12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner’s motion to compel (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice; and 14 2. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file his || opposition. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of substantial cause.

16 || Dated: June 11, 2020 " Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE /brim2284.eot3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE