Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison
ORDER Denying 44 Motion for Law Library Access signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/12/2015. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LAW
CORCORAN STATE PRISON,
Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on his claims in
the Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Dr. Mahoney, Dr. Blanchard, Urbano
LCSW, and Doe 9 for deliberate indifference of Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of
the Eighth Amendment; against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, and J. Gomez for excessive
use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; against Defendant Guards Cordova, Torres, J.
Gomez, and Sgt. Holland regarding the conditions of confinement (i.e. “interference with meals”)
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Dr. Nguyen in his official capacity for
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. (Docs. 32, 43.)
On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order for him to be granted physical
access ("not 'paging'") to the law library a minimum of ten hours a week. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff
argues that when there is a court deadline, his access to the law library is sporadic; that without a
court deadline his access to the law library is limited to two hours every few months; and that
there are no deadlines in this Court's orders thus far. (Id.) However, several orders with
deadlines have issued in this case. (See Docs. 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 26, 28, 32, 34, 36, 38.) As is
evidenced by various orders in this case, requests by inmates for extensions of time to comply
with orders from this court are routinely granted where there is a showing of good cause. (See
Docs. 12, 21, 28, 34, 36, 38.) Further, Plaintiff's argument that deadlines for responding to
discovery are not contained in court orders is correct but, of course, most discovery seeks factual
information, not the type of information which can be obtained from the law library. However, if
it turns out he needs more time to respond to a discovery request, he can apply for that relief to
the Court which would result in an order.1 However, this argument is not yet ripe as the
defendants have not been served and answered for a Discovery and Scheduling Order to issue.
The most recently issued order directs Plaintiff to submit documents for service within thirty day
of the date that it issued, April 28, 2015. (Doc. 45.) Thus, there is a currently pending court
deadline that Plaintiff may show prison staff to assist in his access to the law library.
The Court recognizes that prison administrators Ashould be accorded wide-ranging
deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are
needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.@ Whitley v.
Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). Thus,
the Court shall defer to the prison=s policies and practices in granting access to the law library and
materials to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for law library access,
filed April 23, 2015 (Doc. 44), be DENIED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 12, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On the other hand, this Court currently has before it, literally, thousands of cases involving inmate-litigants who
manage to obtain sufficient, though minimal, access to the law library without the Court issuing orders setting forth
discovery response deadlines. In addition, the prison officials—not this Court—is best situated to determine the
priority for inmate access to the law library.
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?