Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 61


Download PDF
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

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?