(PC) Adkins v. Hurtado

Filing 104

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 05/08/2024 DENYING the 82 Motion to Disqualify, GRANTING the 93 Motion to Compel, and DIRECTING Plaintiff to either produce the log at issue or submit a swor n response indicating that he does not possess it within 21 days. It is RECOMMENDED that the 83 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be denied. Referred to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Spichka, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUPREE LAMONT ADKINS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID HURTADO, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-00531-DJC-JDP (PC)
ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
ECF Nos. 82 & 93

16

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE
DENIED

18
19
20
21

ECF No. 83
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

22
Plaintiff brought this § 1983 case against defendants David Hurtado and E. Marshak,
23
alleging that he was denied access to the law library when similarly situated white inmates were
24

not. Pending are plaintiff’s motion to disqualify and request for preliminary injunctive relief.

25
ECF Nos. 82 & 83. For the reasons stated hereafter, these motions should be denied. Also
26
pending is defendants’ motion to compel seeking an order directing plaintiff to produce a law
27
library log, which he represented was in his possession. ECF No. 93. That motion will be
28
1

1

granted.

2
3

Motion to Disqualify
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to disqualify supervising attorney general Chad E.

4

Stegeman. ECF No. 82 at 1. “The right to disqualify counsel is a discretionary exercise of the

5

trial court’s inherent powers.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 264

6

F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Cal. 2003). In determining whether to disqualify counsel, the court

7

applies state law. In re Cnty. of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2000). In weighing a

8

motion for disqualification, a court should consider “a client’s right to chosen counsel, an

9

attorney’s interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client to replace disqualified

10

counsel, and the possibility that tactical abuse underlies the disqualification motion.” People ex

11

rel. Dep’t of Corps. v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1145, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d

12

816, 980 P.2d 371 (1999).

13

Here, plaintiff argues that requiring him to use a “sign-in” log provides other inmates with

14

his housing information. ECF No. 82 at 2-3. He claims that Stegeman is aware of this danger but

15

has failed to rescind the requirement or otherwise to act upon it. Id. He also alleges that

16

Stegeman has misrepresented facts in signed filings. Id. at 3. The motion is denied. First,

17

Stegeman is not listed on the official docket as a counsel of record for any defendant. Rather, he

18

is the supervising deputy attorney general for the state of California; it is uncertain whether he

19

may even be disqualified from this case. Additionally, plaintiff’s unsupported allegations are

20

insufficient to warrant disqualification. Plaintiff’s claims regarding the danger presented by

21

“sign-in” logs are vague, and I cannot tell how Stegeman is involved in their use. That is, I

22

cannot tell whether Stegeman himself has ordered their implementation or, instead, if they are an

23

element of prison policy that he has declined to intervene against. Additionally, plaintiff has not

24

adequately described what misinformation Stegeman has submitted.

25

This motion is denied.

26

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

27

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief also concerns the aforementioned

28

“sign-in” logs. It asks that the court order that plaintiff be exempted from that requirement when
2

1

using the law library. ECF No. 83 at 7. This motion should be denied. First, despite his vague

2

allegations that the logs allow other inmates to see his confidential information, he has not shown,

3

with the required specificity, that he will be irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction.

4

See Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (“To seek injunctive relief, a

5

plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and

6

particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be

7

fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable

8

judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”). Additionally, the relief requested must be

9

related to the facts and injury asserted in the underlying complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology,

10

LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 638 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We follow the Eighth Circuit and

11

adopt the rule of Devose—there must exist a relationship between the injury claimed in a motion

12

for injunctive relief and the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint.”). Here, plaintiff alleges

13

that he was denied access to the law library that was afforded other, similarly situated inmates of

14

a different race. The suit is not about whether “sign-in” logs pose a danger to him or other

15

inmates forced to use them.

16

This motion should be denied.

17

Motion to Compel

18

Defendants have moved to compel production of a log indicating that other inmates could

19

access the law library when plaintiff himself could not. ECF No. 93 at 2. Plaintiff indicated that

20

he had such a document during a meet and confer with defendants’ counsel. Id. at 3. In his

21

opposition to the motion, plaintiff claims his log is irrelevant, but he has nevertheless attached a

22

document that he claims is responsive.1 ECF No. 95 at 1, 5. In their reply, defendants argue that

23

the document produced in the opposition is not the same log plaintiff previously represented he

24

had during the meet and confer proceedings. ECF No. 96 at 2. I find defendants’ arguments

25

about the relevance of the log persuasive. This suit directly concerns other, white inmates’ ability

26

to access the law library when plaintiff was denied similar access. Thus, a log showing other

27
28

1

Plaintiff has also filed an unauthorized sur-reply, ECF No. 98, which I have reviewed.
Nothing therein alters my conclusions with respect to the defendants’ motion to compel.
3

1

inmates’ access during the relevant time period is unquestionably pertinent. Within twenty-one

2

days of this order’s entry, plaintiff shall either produce the log at issue or submit a sworn response

3

indicating that the document he produced in his opposition is the only pertinent one in his

4

possession. If such a response is submitted, plaintiff should explain the discrepancy between his

5

statements during the meet and confer and his current position.

6

Conclusion

7

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motions to disqualify, ECF No. 82, is DENIED.

9

2. Defendants’ motion to compel, ECF No. 93, is GRANTED and, within twenty-one days

10

of this order’s entry, plaintiff shall either produce the log at issue or submit a sworn

11

response indicating that he does not possess it.

12

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief,

13

ECF No. 83, be DENIED.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

22

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
Dated:
26
27

May 8, 2024
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
4