Goldstein v. Sillen

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 24 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO ACKOWLEDGE PLAINTIFF'S ASSISTANT IN THIS CASEMOTION INFORMING THE COURT OF HIS PRESENT ACCESS TO THE COURT AND REQUEST FOR A MORE BROADER REQUEST TO THE SAN MATEO CO UNTY JAIL STAFFPLAINTIFF'S REQUST FOR COURT ORDERS IN ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH ORDER DATED 3/8/10; denying 29 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO ACKOWLEDGE PLAINTIFF'S ASSISTANT IN THIS CASEMOTION INFORMING THE COURT OF H IS PRESENT ACCESS TO THE COURT AND REQUEST FOR A MORE BROADER REQUEST TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY JAIL STAFFPLAINTIFF'S REQUST FOR COURT ORDERS IN ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH ORDER DATED 3/8/10; denying 34 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE C OURT TO ACKOWLEDGE PLAINTIFF'S ASSISTANT IN THIS CASEMOTION INFORMING THE COURT OF HIS PRESENT ACCESS TO THE COURT AND REQUEST FOR A MORE BROADER REQUEST TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY JAIL STAFFPLAINTIFF'S REQUST FOR COURT ORDERS IN ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH ORDER DATED 3/8/10 (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. ROBERT SILLEN, et al.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARRYL L. GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff, No. C 07-05958 SBA (PR) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT AND ADDRESSING HIS OTHER PENDING MOTIONS / (Docket nos. 24, 29, 34)

Defendants.

The instant case was commenced by Plaintiff Darryl L. Goldstein, who is incarcerated at the San Mateo County Jail. Before the Court is Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file his amendment to the complaint. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's request to grant inmate Ryan Christopher Hatcher next friend status to prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff, his request for an Order granting him "more broader" access to the law library, and his discovery requests. I. Second Request for Extension of Time to File Amendment to the Complaint Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file his amendment to the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amendment to the complaint no later than May 21, 2010, as directed below. II. Next Friend Request Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for the Court to Ackowledge [sic] Plaintiff's Assistant in this Case," which the Court construes as a request for to grant inmate Ryan Christopher Hatcher next friend status to prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) permits a suit by a next friend for an infant or incompetent person. In order to proceed as next friend, inmate Hatcher must show that Plaintiff -the real party in interest -- "is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or similar disability." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990). In addition, the next friend must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, and he must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. Id.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The person seeking next friend status holds the burden of establishing "the propriety of his status and thereby justifying the jurisdiction of the court." Id. There is no evidence that inmate Hatcher has Plaintiff's best interests in mind, or that inmate Hatcher has a "significant relationship" with Plaintiff. While inmate Hatcher claims Plaintiff "has an number of medical problems affect[ing[ his daily activities," there is no evidence that Plaintiff is mentally incompetent or otherwise incapable of pursuing his own action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's next friend request (docket no. 24). III. Law Library Access Also before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion Informing the Court of His Present Access to the Court and Request for a More Broader Request to the San Mateo County Jail Staff," which shall be construed as a request for an order directing jail officials to allow him access to the law library for "at least two (2) hour . . . sessions per week" and to provide him with "pro per/pro se legal supplies and legal postage." In Bounds v. Smith, the Supreme Court held "that the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Subsequently, the Supreme Court clarified that Bounds did not establish a substantive right to law library access, but rather signaled that in order for prisoners' right of access to the courts to be meaningful, they must be given adequate resources to prepare. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). The Court explained: Because Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense. That would be the precise analog of the healthy inmate claiming constitutional violation because of the inadequacy of the prison infirmary. Insofar as the right vindicated by Bounds is concerned, "meaningful access to the courts is the touchstone," and the inmate therefore 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 had 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Id. at 351. In the instant case, Plaintiff has not claimed any actual harm caused by his alleged lack of access to the jail's law library or to any of the other items he listed. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Court has granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amendment to the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order directing jail officials at San Mateo County Jail to provide him with "more broader" law library access and with the items listed above (docket no. 29) is DENIED at this time. IV. Discovery Requests Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for Court Orders In Order for Plaintiff to Comply With Order Dated March 8, 2010," in which he seeks the production of documents which he maintains are relevant to the prosecution of his claims. The scope of discovery is limited to matters "relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be further limited by court order if "(1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should they ask the Court to intervene in the discovery process. The Court does not have time or resources to oversee all discovery and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. To promote this goal of addressing only very specific disagreements, federal and local discovery rules require the parties to meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1. Because Plaintiff is incarcerated he is not required to meet and confer with Defendants in person. Rather, if his discovery requests are denied and he intends to seek a motion to compel he need only

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

send a letter to Defendants to that effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him the sought-after information. Here, Plaintiff did not provide Defendants with one last opportunity to address each discovery request upon which he now requests the Court to produce. Moreover, it may be that Plaintiff will obtain some sought-after discovery if Defendants file a motion for summary judgment and accompanying exhibits, with which Defendants shall also serve Plaintiff. For these reasons, Plaintiff's discovery requests are DENIED as premature. In the interests of justice, the Court sets a discovery cut-off date of thirty (30) days from the date Plaintiff is served with Defendants' dispositive motion. If Plaintiff attempts to meet and confer with Defendants regarding requests for the production of documents and is not satisfied with the result he may file a renewed discovery motion. But in no event shall he file such a motion until after he has reviewed Defendants' dispositive motion. CONCLUSION 1. Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file his amendment to the

complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amendment to the complaint no later than May 21, 2010. He must clearly label the document an "Amendment to the Complaint," and write in the case number for this action, Case No. C 07-5958 SBA (PR). The failure to do so by the May 21, 2010 deadline will result in the dismissal of his supervisory liability claims against Defendants Kelso, Ayers, Petrikas, Saylor, Kannon and Pootell without prejudice. 2. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for the Court to

Ackowledge [sic] Plaintiff's Assistant in this Case" (docket no. 24), which has been construed as a request for to grant inmate Hatcher next friend status to prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff. 3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion, entitled "Motion Informing the Court of His

Present Access to the Court and Request for a More Broader Request to the San Mateo County Jail Staff" (docket no. 29), which has been construed as a request for an order directing jail officials at San Mateo County Jail to provide him with "more broader" law library access and with the items listed above.

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.

The Court DENIES as premature Plaintiff's motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for

Court Orders In Order for Plaintiff to Comply With Order Dated March 8, 2010" (docket no. 34), in which he seeks the production of documents which he maintains are relevant to the prosecution of his claims. 5. This Order terminates Docket nos. 24, 29 and 34.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 5/3/10 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Goldstein5958.2ndEOT-5 C&pendMOTS.wpd A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Goldstein5958.2ndEOT-6 C&pendMOTS.wpd A Darryl Lee Goldstein 100002 San Mateo County Jail 300 Bradford Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Dated: May 5, 2010 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 5, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. v. ROBERT SILLEN FEDERAL RECEIUCER et al, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARRYL L. GOLDSTEIN, Plaintiff,

Case Number: CV07-05958 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk