Washington v. Figueroa

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/21/2017 DENYING petitioner's 31 motion for court to approve PLU status. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES C. WASHINGTON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 2:16-cv-01899 MCE AC

ORDER

FRED FIGUEROA,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition was dismissed as untimely on July 14, 2017. ECF No. 26. On

19

August 8, 2017, petitioner then filed a notice of appeal (ECF No. 28) and his appeal is still

20

pending before the Ninth Circuit. On August 17, 2017, petitioner submitted a motion asking this

21

court to grant him “PLU” status for the duration of his appeal. ECF No. 31. The court will deny

22

this motion.

23

Petitioner does not define “PLU” status in his motion, but the court is able to glean from

24

his attachments that it refers to “Priority Legal User.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3122 (b). While

25

prisoners do have a right of access to the courts, they do not have a federal right to any specific,

26

state-created legal assistance program. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (“[P]rison

27

law libraries and legal assistance programs are not ends in themselves, but only the means for

28

ensuring a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental
1

1

constitutional rights to the courts.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here,

2

petitioner has failed to allege that prison officials’ refusal to approve his PLU status has injured

3

him by frustrating his efforts to pursue a legal claim. Id. (holding that, to state a viable access to

4

the courts claim, an “inmate . . . must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged

5

shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal

6

claim.”). Additionally, the Supreme Court has cautioned courts against interfering with the day-

7

to-day affairs of prison administration. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987). The

8

court is, therefore, reluctant to second guess officials’ decisions as to which inmates should be

9

granted PLU status. Finally, to the extent petitioner is alleging that the denial of PLU status has

10

caused him some injury which violates his right of access to the courts, he must bring that claim

11

in a separate § 1983 action.

12

It is THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for court to approve PLU status

13

(ECF No. 31) is DENIED.

14

DATED: August 21, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2