Williams
v.
Fresno Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAJun 29, 2016
1:16-cv-00734-DAD-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2016)

1:16-cv-00734-DAD-MJS (PC)

06-29-2016

TYRONE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. FRESNO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ATTEND COURT PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 4)

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court issue an order allowing Plaintiff to attend all court hearings in his case. (ECF No. 4.)

The Court recognizes that as a prisoner proceeding pro se, Plaintiff stands at a disadvantage when navigating the litigation process. For that reason, the Court will take affirmative steps to ensure that his "access to the courts is adequate, effective, and meaningful." Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430, U.S. 817, 822 (1977)). However, the Court still has broad discretion to manage the course of litigation, see Hunt v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012), and at this point the Court sees no reason to grant Plaintiff's request.

Absent an order from the Court stating otherwise, all motions in this case will be decided without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l) ("All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in actions wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court.") For all other proceedings, the Court will evaluate the need for Plaintiff to appear in person if and when it arises.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request to attend all Court hearings (ECF No. 4) is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2016

/s/ Michael J . Seng


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE