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).

Download PDF
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?