(PC) Perry v. United States Penitentiary Atwater

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/11/2021. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARETH PERRY,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY,
ATWATER,

Case No. 1:20-cv-00279-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS
RELIEF
(Doc. 16)

Defendant.
Plaintiff Gareth Perry is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

19

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff moves the Court to mark all mail it sends to Plaintiff as

20

“private” or, in the alternative, issue an order that prison staff be required to open mail from the

21

Court in front of Plaintiff. (See Doc. 16 at 1-2.)

22

As explained in the Court’s first screening order (Doc. 14), court records are generally

23

open to the public, with the exception of documents filed under seal or pursuant to a protective

24

order. See, e.g., Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13

25

(9th Cir. 2002). “The public” includes prison staff. In addition, as also explained in the screening

26

order, prison officials may generally inspect mail from the courts outside of inmates’ presence.

27

See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). “Mail from the courts, as

28

contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail…. Accordingly, the First

1

Amendment does not prohibit opening such mail outside the recipient’s presence.” Id. (internal

2

quotation marks and citation omitted).
For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

January 11, 2021

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.