Campos-Rodriguez v. Jones et al
Filing
23
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 4/2/2018 ORDERING Clerk of Court to make 2 copies of 1 Complaint to permit the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the complaint; serve a copy of this order on Capta in Noren, Lieutenant Green, and Sergeant George, El Dorado County Sheriffs Office, South Lake Tahoe Jail, 1051 Al Tahoe Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150; randomly assign a district judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING 17 Motion for Injunction regarding law library access be denied. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSE ARBOR CAMPOS-RODRIGUEZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-1269 DB P
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
JONES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the South Lake Tahoe Jail (“Jail”). He is proceeding pro se and
17
18
in forma pauperis with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants interfered
19
with his legal mail. In orders filed January 23 and March 7, 2018, the court found service of the
20
complaint appropriate on defendants Bedford and Jones. (ECF Nos. 13, 16.) So that the U.S.
21
Marshal may serve these defendants, the court ordered plaintiff to submit documents to the court,
22
including three copies of his complaint.
On March 12, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 17.)
23
24
Plaintiff complained that the jail does not have an “adequate law library” or a means for plaintiff
25
to make photocopies of legal documents. In response, the court noted that plaintiff’s only
26
obligation at this point is to provide the court with the documents necessary to serve defendants
27
////
28
////
1
1
Bedford and Jones. That obligation does not require law library access. Further, the court notes
2
that plaintiff’s recent filings include extensive case citations and legal argument, indicating that
3
he does, in fact, have the ability to conduct legal research. The court will recommend plaintiff’s
4
motion for an injunction requiring defendants to provide a better law library be denied.
5
However, plaintiff does require access to a photocopier. The court ordered plaintiff to
6
supplement his motion by explaining who is denying him access to photocopying services. (ECF
7
No. 20.)
8
9
On March 15, 2018, plaintiff submitted all of the documents necessary for service of his
complaint except for two copies of the complaint. As a one-time courtesy to plaintiff, and
10
because, as described below, the Jail does not appear to have a reasonable method for plaintiff to
11
make copies, the court will provide sufficient copies of the complaint to permit its service on
12
defendants Bedford and Jones. In a separate order, the court will instruct the U.S. Marshal to
13
serve the complaint.
14
On March 26 and 28, 2018, plaintiff filed supplements to his motion. With respect to
15
photocopying services, plaintiff’s filings show that the Jail will allow plaintiff to make
16
photocopies only if he “appoint[s] a ‘legal runner’ who can assist [him] in the completion and
17
filing of legal documents, and make copies for you.” (See Inmate Grievance Response dated
18
Mar. 2, 2018, attached to plaintiff’s March 26 supplement as Ex. H (ECF No. 21 at 15).) Plaintiff
19
identifies the following Jail personnel as preventing him from making photocopies: Captain
20
Noren, Lieutenant Green, and Sergeant George.
21
Prisoners have a constitutionally-protected right of meaningful access to the courts.
22
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). This right encompasses the use of a copier to
23
prepare legal filings. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[I]t does not
24
require sophisticated ‘legal scholarship’ to know that a plaintiff's access to the courts could be
25
hindered seriously by an inability to make multiple, accurate copies of legal documents.”); Gluth
26
v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1510 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Litigation necessarily requires some means of
27
accurate duplication because the court and the parties need to refer to the same documents.
28
Photocopying is a reasonable means of providing the necessary copies.”). While these standards
2
1
do not require the Jail to provide unlimited free copies, they do require that plaintiff be given
2
reasonable access to photocopying. See Canell v. Bradshaw, 840 F. Supp. 1382, 1392 (D. Or.
3
Nov. 23, 1993) (“[P]hotocopying can be an indispensable service when the plaintiff is obliged to
4
provide copies of exhibits and other original documents to the court and opposing counsel.”); see
5
also Johnson v. Parke, 642 F.2d 377, 380 (10th Cir. 1981).
6
In the present case, plaintiff is an indigent Jail inmate representing himself. The court
7
ordered him to provide three copies of his complaint to proceed with this case. Indigent inmates
8
must be provided certain materials in order to have adequate access to the courts. King v. Atiyeh,
9
814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds in Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693
10
F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). For example, they must be provided with postage stamps at state
11
expense to mail legal documents, subject to reasonable regulations by the state. Id. Case law
12
demonstrates that plaintiff must be provided a reasonable way to make photocopies in order to
13
proceed with this action.
14
The court will reserve ruling on plaintiff’s motion for an injunction regarding access to
15
photocopying. The court will order the Clerk to serve a copy of this order on Captain Noren,
16
Lieutenant Green, and Sergeant George at the South Lake Tahoe Jail. If plaintiff remains unable
17
to have reasonable access to photocopying, the court may order these Sheriff’s Department
18
employees or defendants to respond to plaintiff’s motion.
19
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to do the following:
20
1. Make two copies of plaintiff’s June 21, 2017 complaint (ECF No. 1) to permit the
21
U.S. Marshal to effect service of the complaint as described in the accompanying
22
order;
23
2. Serve a copy of this order on Captain Noren, Lieutenant Green, and Sergeant George,
24
El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, South Lake Tahoe Jail, 1051 Al Tahoe Blvd.,
25
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150; and
26
3. Randomly assign a district judge to this case.
27
Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for an injunction
28
regarding law library access (ECF No. 17) be denied.
3
1
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
2
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
3
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
4
with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings
5
and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
6
time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951
7
F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
8
Dated: April 2, 2018
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/camp1269.pi copying
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?