Walker v. Whitten et al

Filing 128

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 02/07/13 recommending that plaintiff's request for the court to order prison officials to allow plaintiff to use a typewriter be denied. Plaintiff's request for the court to order prison officials to provided him with more access to the prison law library be denied. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:09-cv-0642 WBS CKD P

vs.
A.H. WHITTEN, et al.,
Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

In an order dated November 29, 2012, the court denied plaintiff’s request for an

17

order directing officials at his prison to allow plaintiff to use a typewriter and to provide plaintiff

18

with more access to the prison law library. Specifically, the court found as follows:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff . . . requests that the court order that plaintiff be provided
access to a typewriter. Plaintiff asserts it is difficult for him to
write. Plaintiff has made this request on several occasions and
such requests have been specifically denied three times within the
last year. Dkt. Nos. 77, 88 & 104. Also, a review of the Court’s
docket reveals that within the last three or so years, plaintiff has
filed approximately 30 handwritten documents with the court,
approximately 10 of which are 5 pages or longer in length. In
light of these facts, plaintiff’s request that the court order prison
officials to provide plaintiff with access to a typewriter will be
denied.
Finally, plaintiff has requested that the court order that he be
granted more access to his prison’s law library. However, he has

26
1

1

not explained why he needs more access. This request will be
denied.

2
3

Plaintiff appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. No. 117. On January 23,

4

2013, the Ninth Circuit found the court did not have the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to enter

5

the order described above because the court lacks the authority to “deny injunctive relief.” The

6

Ninth Circuit then transferred this case to the district court judge assigned to this case for “further

7

action.” The district court has now remanded back to this court for findings and

8

recommendations as to whether plaintiff should be granted access to a typewriter and more

9

access to the law library.

10

As indicated above, the record before the court on November 29, 2012 did not

11

demonstrate that plaintiff required a typewriter or increased access to the law library to pursue

12

this case. Furthermore, at this point, plaintiff need not submit anything lengthy or legally

13

complex with the court as the court is waiting for defendants’ reply brief concerning their

14

pending motion for summary judgment to draft and issue findings and recommendations. For

15

these reasons the court recommends that plaintiff’s request that the court order prison officials to

16

allow plaintiff to use a typewriter and to provide plaintiff with more access to his prison’s law

17

library be denied.

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

19

1. Plaintiff’s request that the court order prison officials to allow plaintiff to use a

20
21
22
23

typewriter be denied.
2. Plaintiff’s request that the court order prison officials to provide him with more
access to his prison’s law library be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

24

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

25

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

26

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
2

1

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

2

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

3

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

4

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

Dated: February 7, 2013

6

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10

1
walk0642.twll

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