Pigg v. B P X Energy

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedMay 20, 2021
Docket5:21-cv-00159
StatusUnknown

This text of Pigg v. B P X Energy (Pigg v. B P X Energy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pigg v. B P X Energy, (W.D. La. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

RANDY PIGG #V-46860 CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-cv-159

VERSUS CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

B P X ENERGY, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 21) that asks for additional time to effect service on defendant Jeremy Evans. The motion is granted as follows. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and the marshal is making service in this case. Service was previously delivered to Johnston Chandler, and the marshal made a return with a note that the wife of Chandler advised that he passed away on February 22, 2021. The clerk of court later discovered that the service packets forwarded to the marshal for the defendants did not include a summons, so new service packets that include a USM-285, summons, and copy of the complaints have recently been forwarded to the marshal for another attempt at service. Because the court and marshal are responsible for service, Plaintiff need not be concerned about the time limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Additional Law Library Time (Doc. 22). He states that he needs additional time, beyond that allowed by his California institution, to conduct legal research related to this civil dispute that concerns mineral and property rights. Prisoners do not have a freestanding right to access to a law library. The right of access to the courts requires access only to what an inmate needs to attack his sentence or challenge his conditions of confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity, such as for a slip and fall or property rights claim, is simply one of the incidental and constitutional consequences of conviction and incarceration. Lewis v. Casey, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2182 (1996). The ability to conduct general research that is not related to preparation of a lawsuit challenging one’s own conviction or the conditions of his confinement is not guaranteed by the constitution. Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 311 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Law Library Time (Doc. 22) is denied. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 20th day of May, 2021.

rAd Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. Rodriguez
110 F.3d 299 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Lewis v. Casey
518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pigg v. B P X Energy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pigg-v-b-p-x-energy-lawd-2021.