Tenore v. Goodgame et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/6/13 denying 40 Motion for Court-Ordered Access Via Correspondence. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MICHAEL TENORE,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-cv-1082 WBS CKD P
vs.
NATHANAEL GOODGAME, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is in the discovery stage.
17
In the motion before the court, plaintiff seeks an order granting him frequent contact with his
18
“inmate paralegal assistant and witness” Thomas Hightower (No. J98566), including the ability
19
to mail legal materials to each other at their respective institutions. Plaintiff is currently
20
incarcerated at Valley State Prison; Mr. Hightower is at Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff does
21
not explain what knowledge Hightower has of facts relevant to the instant claims. (Dkt. No. 40.)
22
Defendants have opposed the motion. (Dkt .No. 41.) They assert that plaintiff
23
can request approval to correspond with Hightower pursuant to California Code of Regulations
24
tit. 15 § 3139, which sets forth a procedure by which inmates may apply to correspond with other
25
inmates. “There shall be no limits set on the number of times approved inmates . . . can
26
correspond with each other” unless approval is revoked due to disciplinary, safety or security
1
1
reasons. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3139(d).
2
As plaintiff does not allege that he requested to correspond with Hightower
3
through available means, or that such a request was unreasonably denied, the court will deny
4
plaintiff’s motion.
5
6
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s January 14, 2013
Motion for Court-Ordered Access Via Correspondence (Dkt. No. 40) is denied.
Dated: February 6, 2013
8
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
2
teno1082.ord3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?