Utley v. Acevedo et al
Filing
36
***DISREGARD***ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 34 Request for an Order without Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/25/2016. (Sant Agata, S) Modified (filed in error, duplicate of 35 ) on 5/26/2016. (Gaumnitz, R).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VANCE UTLEY,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:15-cv-01086-DAD-SAB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR AN ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
C.O. ACEVEDO, C.O. WIMER, and C.O.
LOPEZ,
(Doc No. 34)
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On May 23, 2016, counsel for plaintiff filed a request seeking a court order requiring the
21
warden at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) to permit counsel to bring a laptop computer into
22
SVSP to access electronic records during a contact meeting at SVSP between counsel and his
23
client. (ECF No. 34.) Therein, plaintiffs’ also requested that the meeting be scheduled in a room
24
with electrical power for counsel’s laptop computer. (Doc No. 34.) Counsel indicated that he is
25
meeting with plaintiff on May 26, 2016, at SVSP to review records and prepare for trial.
26
Plaintiff’s counsel also represents that he will be at SVSP on June 14, 2016, to represent plaintiff
27
at his deposition. Counsel asserts that he emailed his request to bring his laptop computer into
28
SVSP for his interview with plaintiff to the SVSP litigation coordinator, but the request was
1
1
denied. The denial simply stated that plaintiff’s counsel could print out all the records that he
2
needs to bring. (Doc No. 34-1 at 4.) Plaintiff argues that there was no explanation for the denial
3
of the request and that he has been allowed to bring his laptop into other California prisons under
4
similar circumstances. Plaintiff also argues that the cost of printing all of the records in this case
5
is prohibitive and that all of the records are available on plaintiff’s counsel’s laptop computer.
6
The short time between the filing of counsel’s request and the scheduled May 26, 2016,
7
meeting is insufficient to allow the court to address the request on the merits. The court has not
8
been able to determine defendant’s position with respect to the request. Nor has the court had
9
time to make inquiry to determine whether there is any legitimate reason for the litigation
10
coordinator’s denial of counsel’s request. At first blush, there would appear to be none. Of
11
course, for many years federal courts have employed an electronic case filing system under which
12
paper files have been eliminated. The court is also aware of an expanding pilot program under
13
which civil rights complaints filed by California prisoners in federal court are submitted
14
electronically as well. It would appear likely that at plaintiff’s deposition in this case, the court
15
reporter will be allowed to enter the prison with electronic equipment. There may well be many
16
more examples of computers being allowed inside of California prisons depending on the
17
circumstances. However, the record here has not been adequately developed nor has counsel
18
adequately established the necessity of having his laptop computer available to him tomorrow
19
during his meeting in order to adequately represent his client.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for the court to order the warden at Salinas Valley State
20
21
Prison to permit plaintiff’s attorney to bring a laptop computer into Salinas Valley State Prison to
22
access electronic records during his May 26, 2016 meeting with plaintiff and to allow that
23
meeting to take place in a room that provides electrical power to the computer is denied without
24
prejudice to the bringing of a fully supported motion sufficiently in advance of any future
25
scheduled meeting or other proceeding inside of SVSP.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated:
May 25, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?