Graham v. Runnels, et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/20/11 ORDEERING that the court will provide defendants counsel an opportunity to provide a response to plaintiffs counsels request within seven days. There will be no extension of time. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LEVON D. GRAHAM,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-07-2291 GGH P

RUNNELS, et al.,

14
15

Defendants.

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks relief pursuant

17

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Brian Berry of Latham & Watkins, LLP, has communicated with this court

18

by way of a letter, copied to counsel for defendants. Mr. Berry indicates that, in view of the

19

rapidly approaching dispositive motion deadline, on November 23, 2011, plaintiff’s counsel

20

needs access to plaintiff in order to prepare an effective opposition; however, other than a June

21

2011, telephone call to plaintiff, all subsequent written and oral requests to the Salinas Valley

22

Litigation Coordinator (SVSP) Jennifer Delaney, for telephonic communication, have been

23

refused. Mr. Berry indicates that plaintiff is in administrative segregation, where telephone

24

access is not permitted, and that plaintiff will remain there through at least November of 2011.

25

Ms. Delaney apparently requires a court order for further communication by telephone. The

26

court agrees with plaintiff’s counsel that regular trips to SVSP from San Francisco would be
1

1

unduly burdensome for pro bono counsel. While the undersigned is loath to intervene where

2

state prison officials’ administration of state prisons is concerned, counsel for plaintiff should not

3

be completely foreclosed from an alternative form of live communication with their client in the

4

circumstances. The two defendants in this action, Kopec and Martin, were employed at High

5

Desert State Prison and thus do not appear to be implicated in any fashion by this request.

6

Nevertheless, the court will provide defendant’s counsel an opportunity to provide a response to

7

plaintiff’s counsel’s request within seven days. There will be no extension of time.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 20, 2011

10

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13

GGH:009
levo2291.ordx

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2