Packnett v. Alvarez et al

Filing 70

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF; AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF HIS FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION re 69 Declaration in Support filed by Kenneth Jerome Packnett. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/28/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT,

Case No. 15-cv-01229-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF; AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF HIS FIFTH
AND FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
DISPOSITIVE MOTION

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Kenneth Jerome Packnett, an indigent prisoner who is currently housed at the
California Medical Facility (“CMF”), filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 regarding alleged violations of his federal rights while he was incarcerated at San Quentin
State Prison.
Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 47.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition even though he has been granted four extensions of
time to do so. Dkts. 57, 61, 65, 68. His last opposition deadline of May 25, 2017 has passed. See
Dkt. 68 at 1.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing entitled, “Discretionary Review re Extension of Time;
Rule 56 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Declaration of Plaintiff.” Dkt. 69. In this filing,
Plaintiff explains that he was recently examined by a neurologist, who recommended that Plaintiff
undergo “six to nine weeks of physical therapy and additional procedures.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff also
requests the following materials which are “intended to allow [him] to continue the prosecution of
this complaint”: 10 #2 pencils; 5 black pens; 5 yellow highlighters; 8 folders with pockets; 4 hours
of law library access on both Saturday and Sunday; and 50 sheets of lined legal paper. Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff claims he is “indigent and unable to pay [for] 15 legal lined 1-28 pages . . . .” Id. at 3.
Plaintiff also requests that the Court order prison medical staff to “refer [him] to be seen by [an]
optometr[ist] [because his] bi-focals broke two months ago.” Id. However, the Court notes that
nowhere in this filing has Plaintiff alleged that he has made such requests from CMF or that CMF

1

officials have refused to provide him with the aforementioned materials, law library access or an

2

optometry appointment. See id. at 1-3. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a document, which will be

3

construed as a motion for administrative relief from this Court directing CMF officials to provide

4

him with his aforementioned requests.

5

Although CMF is not a party to this action, it is well established that indigent prisoners
must be provided with a writing instrument and paper, and other materials such as envelopes and

7

postage, necessary to draft and file legal documents. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25

8

(1977); Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1510 (9th Cir. 1991); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 565

9

(9th Cir. 1987). In Bounds, the United States Supreme Court also held “that the fundamental

10

constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law

12

libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” 430 U.S. at 828.

13

In view of this, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court

14

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing CMF prison officials to provide him with his

15

specific aforementioned requests because he has not shown a sufficient reason for this Court to

16

interfere in the day-to-day operations of the prison. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-86

17

(1987); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing

18

themselves in minutiae of prison operations in the name of constitution). To the extent that

19

Plaintiff is requesting reasonable access to such materials necessary to draft and file legal

20

documents, the Court GRANTS his motion. The Court requests that CMF officials provide

21

Plaintiff with reasonable access to the law library as well as paper and a writing instrument in

22

order for him to comply with this Court’s Orders and deadlines.

23

In light of Plaintiff’s most recent filing, the Court finds that Plaintiff may be granted a brief

24

fifth and final extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

25

Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to

26

Defendants’ dispositive motion will be extended up to and including July 21, 2017. Defendants

27

shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

28

This is Plaintiff’s final extension, and no further extensions will be granted.
2

1

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to serve a copy of this Order on the Litigation

2

Coordinator’s Office at the California Medical Facility, 1600 California Avenue, Vacaville, CA

3

95696.

4

This Order terminates Docket No. 69.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: June 28, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3