Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 29 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM INTERFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

TODD ASHKER and DANNY TROXELL,

No. C 09-05796 CW

9

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM INTERFERENCE

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14

Pro se Plaintiffs Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell, inmates at

15
16

Pelican State Prison (PBSP) move for relief from Defendants’

17

alleged interference with Plaintiffs’ ability to prosecute this

18

case.

19

staff are not allowing Plaintiffs to photocopy documents Plaintiffs

20

feel are necessary for the prosecution of their case.

21

have filed an opposition.

22

the papers.

23

Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

24

The essence of Plaintiffs’ motion is that members of PBSP

Defendants

The motion was taken under submission on

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the

This motion is based on the following facts.

Plaintiffs

25

submitted a request for the PBSP law library to photocopy a

26

document that Plaintiffs wish to send to other PBSP inmates.

27

document summarizes Plaintiffs’ complaint and requests that the

28

inmates send Plaintiffs declarations to use as evidence in support

This

1

of their civil rights claims.

2

because it was not clear if this correspondence fit the definition

3

of “legal documents” pursuant to Department Operations Manual (DOM)

4

§ 14010.21.

5

Plaintiffs sought was not court-ordered discovery, Plaintiffs had

6

to obtain written authorization from the warden to send it to other

7

inmates, as required by DOM § 54010.22.

8

is unfair for PBSP staff to deny their photocopying request because

9

the denial will “force them to handwrite many pages of documents

The law library denied this request

The law library stated that if the information

Plaintiffs argue that it

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

for each of the many witness inquiries.”

11

the document Plaintiffs wish to duplicate and send to other inmates

12

and concludes that PBSP staff did not misapply DOM

13

§ 14010.21 and § 54010.22.

14

summary of their case to potential inmate witnesses.

15

warden’s approval, Plaintiffs may send to potential inmate

16

witnesses a list of questions to be answered under penalty of

17

perjury.

18

submit a request to the PBSP law library for the list to be

19

photocopied.

20

The Court has reviewed

Plaintiffs do not need to send a
With the

Plaintiffs, in accordance with prison regulations, may

Plaintiffs also argue that California Code of Regulations

21

§ 3162(a), which provides that a legal document submitted for

22

duplication which is longer than fifty pages must be accompanied by

23

the inmate’s written explanation of the need for the number of

24

pages, causes them lengthy delays in their litigation effort

25

because they must substantiate their need for documents over fifty

26

pages, and then file with the Court requests for extensions of time

27

to file the documents.

28

Plaintiffs make the same argument about DOM
2

1

§ 101120.15, which likewise requires, for duplication requests of

2

documents in excess of fifty pages, a written explanation for the

3

length, and which additionally requires a court order to duplicate

4

a legal document in excess of 100 pages.

5

the PBSP law library staff is not exceeding its authority by

6

applying § 3162(a) and § 101120.5 to Plaintiffs’ requests for the

7

duplication of lengthy documents.

8

is not common practice for documents to be filed with the Court

9

that are in excess of fifty pages.

The Court concludes that

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ view, it

See Civil Local Rules 7-2(b)(1)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(a motion is not to exceed twenty-five pages); 7-3(a) (opposition

11

is not to exceed twenty-five pages); 7-3(c) (reply is not to exceed

12

fifteen pages); 7-11 (administrative motion is required to obtain

13

court order allowing the filing of a motion that exceeds the

14

applicable page limit before filing such a motion).

15
16
17

CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from
interference is denied.

18
19
20

Dated: 10/11/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
TODD ASHKER et al,

Case Number: CV09-05796 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

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 October 11, 2011, 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.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Danny Troxell
Pelican Bay State Prison
B76578
P.O. Box 7500
D1-120
Crescent City, CA 95532
Todd Ashker C58191
Pelican Bay State Prison
P.O. Box 7500
D1-SHU
Crescent City, CA 95532
Dated: October 11, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

23
24
25
26
27
28

4