Howard v. Lane, et al.
Filing
52
ORDER Denying 46 Motion to Compel signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 01/29/2015. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TIMOTHY HOWARD,
Case No. 1:12-cv-01875-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION AT DOCKET 46
vs.
C. LANE, et al.,
Defendants.
At Docket 46 Plaintiff Timothy Howard has moved for an order compelling
Defendants M. Harris and J. Martin to respond to several discovery requests. Defendants
M. Harris and J. Martin have opposed the motion.1 Although the time therefore has lapsed,
Howard has not replied.
I.
BACKGROUND
In screening the Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge found that Howard had
pleaded a viable First Amendment – Retaliatory Gang Violation claim against Defendants
M. Harris, S. Furlong, and J. Martins, and a First Amendment – Inmate Grievance Process
claim against Defendants Harris and Martins. All other claims were dismissed.2
Subsequently, the Court dismissed the claim against S. Furlong.3
1
Docket 47.
2
Docket 8.
3
Docket 34.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 46
Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 1
II.
APPLICABLE STANDARD
In general, a party is entitled to the discovery of any and all non-privileged matters
relevant to the issues presented in the pleadings, including inadmissible material that might
logically lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.4
III.
DISCUSSION
As Defendants note, the information Howard seeks falls within one of three topical
categories: (1) information concerning a staff assault that occurred on February 2, 2010;
(2) information concerning prison gangs and California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation policy concerning prison gangs; and (3) request for log book entries.
Howard’s retaliation claim is predicated upon his allegations that Harris and Martins
“fabricated” the evidence that was used in part to validate him as a member of the Black
Guerilla Gang. The investigation into the alleged staff assault in February 2010 bears no
relevance whatsoever to this issue.5 More importantly, there is no allegation as against
either Harris or Martins that they, or either of them, improperly validated him. Indeed, the
allegations of the First Amended Complaint, upon which this case is proceeding,
unequivocally establishes that, although it was based at least in part of information
provided by Martins and Harris, the validation was made by another officer. Thus, neither
4
Fed. R. iv. P. 26(b)(1).
5
The Court notes that in responding to this motion Defendants concede that the
report filed by Harris did not conclude that Howard was implicated in the February 2, 2010,
staff assault.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 46
Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 2
the validity of the validation nor whether the evidence was sufficient to support the
validation as a gang member is at issue in this case. 6
In its Screening Order, the Court also permitted the case to proceed as against
Harris and Martins on the First Amendment – Inmate Grievance claim based on the
allegation that they tore up his grievance. Further review of the Amended Complaint
indicates that in this the Court erred. W ith respect to that claim Howard alleges:
[. . . .] And at that time prisoner requested the document back and at
that time IGI/ISU Officer Harris looked at (IGI/ISU) Martins and said “since
Howard wants to file paperwork on us, why don’t we file on him”?? and
(IGI/ISU) Officer Martins replied “thats a plan” and at that time asked for the
papers a second time, and at that time (IGI/ISU) Martin tore up my appeals,
exhibits, letters, etc, however I had copies and the originals, but I wanted
defendants to assume that those were my only copies so that they wouldn’t
search my cell and confiscate my only documents and exhibits (defendants
stated that they knew I contacted internal affairs).7
Accepting as it must that the allegation is true, while the Court does not condone the
alleged conduct, it does not give rise to a viable claim under § 1983. The Court starts with
the proposition that the right of access to the courts is a well established fundamental
constitutional right.8 It is, however, also well established that there must be some injury and
that requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim.9 Access to the
courts in the Constitutional context is the opportunity to prepare, serve, and file such
pleadings and documents necessary or appropriate to commence or prosecute court
6
In the context of this case, the Court must assume that the evidence was sufficient
to support Howard’s validation.
7
Amended Complaint, Docket 6, p. 7.
8
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 828 (1977).
9
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996).
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 46
Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 3
proceedings affecting one’s personal liberty.10 Access to court claims are of two types—a
forward-looking claim, i.e., one in which the action seeks to remove impediments or road
blocks to future litigation, and a backward-looking claim, i.e., one in which specific litigation
ended poorly, or could not have commenced, or could have produced a result
subsequently unobtainable. 11 The alleged acts of Harris and Martins that they destroyed
his appeal documents do not meet either. That is, because he has not pleaded, nor may
he truthfully plead, that the actions deprived him of his, right to seek redress, Howard
suffered no harm as a result of that act, the sine qua non of a § 1983 action. The
appropriate remedy is an internal disciplinary investigation and appropriate action by CDCR
against Defendants, not a civil rights action in this Court.
The sole triable issue upon which this case depends is whether or not Defendants
Harris and Martins, or either or them, provided false information upon which Plaintiff was
validated as a gang member and, if so, the appropriate remedy.
IV.
ORDER
The Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions at Docket 46 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
Id. at 384 (Thomas, J. concurring); Philips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1075–76 (9th
Cir. 2007); Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159–60 (9th
Cir. 2003).
11
See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413–14 (2002).
ORDER DENYING MOTION AT DOCKET 46
Howard v. Lane, 1:12-cv-01875-RRB - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?