Johnson v. Swarthout
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/05/11 ordering the motion to change respondent's name 14 is granted. The clerk of court is directed to add Gary Swarthout as the proper respondent. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel 13 is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON,
10
11
12
13
Petitioner,
vs.
GARY SWARTHOUT,
Respondent.
14
15
No. CIV-S-11-2719 CKD P
ORDER
/
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of
16
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has moved to add as a respondent the warden of the
17
state prison where he is incarcerated. The motion is well taken: “A petitioner for habeas corpus
18
relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.”
19
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, Rick Hill, who
20
is warden at Folsom State Prison, is not the proper respondent. Petitioner states in his motion
21
that since he filed his petition, he has been moved from Folsom to California State Prison-
22
Solano, where the warden is Gary Swarthout. Therefore the motion will be granted to add Gary
23
Swarthout as the proper respondent.
24
Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists
25
no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105
26
F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of
1
1
counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R.
2
Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice
3
would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time.
4
One of petitioner’s grounds for requesting the assistance of counsel concerns his
5
limited access to the law library and his allegation that he does not receive adequate materials to
6
prosecute his case. An inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the
7
courts, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977), and that right includes reasonable access
8
to a legal library. However, there is no freestanding constitutional right to law library access for
9
prisoners; law library access serves as one means of ensuring the constitutional right of access to
10
the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). “[T]he Constitution does not
11
guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to a law library. Prison officials of necessity must regulate
12
the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Linquist v. Idaho State Bd. of
13
Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir.1985). An inmate is also entitled to adequate materials
14
for drafting submissions to the courts: “It is indisputable that indigent inmates must be provided
15
at state expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents, with notarial services to
16
authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 824-25. A typewriter is
17
not essential for an inmate to draft legal documents.
18
A prisoner claiming that his right of access to the courts has been violated due to
19
blocked access to the courts must show that: 1) access was so limited as to be unreasonable, and
20
2) the inadequate access caused actual injury. Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.
21
1994). A prisoner cannot make conclusory declarations of injury, but instead must demonstrate
22
that a non-frivolous legal claim has been frustrated or impeded. To prevail, however, it is not
23
enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with
24
respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to
25
present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348.
26
\\\\
2
1
[T]he inmate... must go one step further and demonstrate that the
alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program
hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might show, for
example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for failure to
satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies
in the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known.
Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to
bring before the courts, but was so stymied by
inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a
complaint.
2
3
4
5
6
Id. at 351.
7
This case is barely more than three months old, and thus far petitioner has had no
8
problem communicating his grievances and concerns to the court. If prison conditions so impede
9
his access to the court that his ability to prosecute his case is prejudiced in the way described
10
above, then petitioner may seek injunctive relief from the court. As it stands now, however,
11
there is no evidence that conditions at petitioner’s place of confinement have sunk to that level.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. The motion to change respondent’s name (Docket No. 14) is granted. The
14
Clerk of Court is directed to add Gary Swarthout as the proper respondent.
15
16
2. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 13) is denied
without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
17
Dated: December 5, 2011
18
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
3
john2619.ord
22
23
24
25
26
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?