Meador v. Aye et al

Filing 112

SUPPLEMENT to ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 01/13/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
GORDON DALE MEADOR,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

1:14-cv-00006-DAD-EPG (PC)
SUPPLEMENT TO ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO
BONO COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 103)

K. AYE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19

Gordon Meador (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

21

request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 102). Plaintiff asked the Court to

22

appoint limited purpose counsel to draft and file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for

23

summary judgment.

24

According to Plaintiff, he needed counsel appointed because this case is complex, because

25

Plaintiff is in Administrative Segregation and has no law library access, because Plaintiff has

26

limited knowledge of the law, because Plaintiff has a 2.9 GPL, and because Plaintiff has been

27

unable to obtain declarations from his witnesses.

28

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel, but granted him 60 days to
1

1

respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and required the Office of the Attorney

2

General to file a response regarding Plaintiff’s alleged lack of law library access. (ECF No. 103).

3

On December 28, 2016, the Office of the Attorney General filed the declaration of officer

4

Lamar Grant. (ECF No. 107). According to Lamar Grant, he was one of the officers responsible

5

for determining if inmates in the Ad. Seg. Unit desired law library access. If an inmate requested

6

law library use, he would document the request. Attached to Lamar Grant’s declaration was a

7

copy of the library logs. According to Lamar Grant, and the library logs, Plaintiff never requested

8

use of the law library.

9

On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to Lamar Grant’s declaration. According

10

to Plaintiff, he did request law library access, but was never provided it. Plaintiff alleges that

11

what he has access to does not qualify as a law library, because there are no books and there is no

12

law librarian to assist. Instead, there is an outdated computer that does not have updated cases or

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

research capability. Plaintiff further alleges that his requests to make a copy of his response to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied, and that there are issues with his legal
mail. Plaintiff requests that the Court send a representative to investigate these claims. Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that his legal mail frequently goes missing.
The Court reaffirms its earlier order, denying pro bono counsel and giving an extension of
time to respond to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 103). Regarding the sufficiency of the law
library, the Court will not take further action at this time. There is a dispute regarding whether
Plaintiff requested law library access. The Court reminds all parties of the obligation to provide
Plaintiff with access to the Courts. That said, in this case, Plaintiff has thus far been able to file
documents with the Court, and in fact recently filed a response to Defendant’s summary judgment
motion that is over 500 pages (ECF No. 108).

There appears to be no allegation in that

23
opposition that it is deficient because of a lack of access to a law library. Additionally, Plaintiff
24
has responded to both the Court and Defendants, so there does not appear to be an issue with
25
26
27

Plaintiff receiving his legal mail in this case. As to the failure to make copies of Plaintiff’s
opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, this too appears to have had no effect
on this case. Plaintiff has filed his opposition, Defendants have received an electronic copy of the

28
2

1

opposition, and thus far Defendants have not complained about not receiving a paper copy.

2

Plaintiff’s response raises other issues regarding the adequacy of the law library in

3

general. The Court finds these allegations outside the scope of Plaintiff’s current complaint and

4

the Court’s jurisdiction based on the complaint. To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief on these

5

issues, Plaintiff must file a separate complaint, which will proceed in due course.

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8

Dated:

January 13, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3