Washington v. Sandoval et al
Filing
54
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 52 Motion to Compel; denying 53 Motion Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JESSE WASHINGTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
D. SANDOVAL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 10-0250 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL; DENYING REQUEST
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;
GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
(Docket Nos. 52, 53)
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983, raising claims of deliberate indifference to safety, and retaliation. On July 18, 2011,
19
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 19, 2011, the Court granted
20
Plaintiff an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary
21
judgment, and granted in part Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending disposition of their
22
motion for summary judgment.
23
On September 22, 2011, the Court received and filed Plaintiff’s motion to compel
24
discovery. However, Plaintiff’s motion was mailed the day before the Court issued its order
25
granting in part Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Because Plaintiff did not have the benefit
26
of that order, his motion requests some items that are not now permitted to be sought in
27
discovery. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal, if
28
Plaintiff still believes he is entitled to discovery that he has not received.
Order Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Request for Protective Order; Granting Motion for Extension of Time
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.10\Washington250misc2
1
On October 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a request for a protective order, and requested
2
another extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
3
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the prison librarian has been denying his “Priority Legal User”
4
requests to access the law library, and he wants a “protective order” requiring the prison warden
5
to afford him “effectively and meaningful access to court” [sic]. The request is DENIED. First,
6
there are prison procedures in place to determine who gets what access to the prison law library.
7
Moreover, meaningful access to the law library is not necessarily equivalent to meaningful
8
access to the courts. The Court does not have sufficient information to determine the accuracy of
9
the librarian’s decision to deny Plaintiff “Priority Legal User” status to the library, nor the effect
10
that decision has on Plaintiff’s ability to access the courts. Second, such an order directing the
11
Warden to provide “meaningful access” to the courts or the library would be inappropriate at this
12
stage because the United States Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts to avoid
13
entanglement in the day-to-day matters of prison administration. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
14
78, 84-85 (1987) (federal courts should exercise restraint before interfering in the complex realm
15
of prison administration). Under some circumstances, the prevention of accessing the library
16
might rise to the level of violating an inmate’s constitutional right of access to the courts, see
17
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), but such a claim would not accrue until Plaintiff suffered
18
an actual injury, and relief would have to be sought in a new civil rights action. Thus, Plaintiff’s
19
request for a protective order is DENIED.
20
Finally, Plaintiff moves for another extension of time to file his opposition to
21
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is
22
GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary
23
judgment no later than sixty (60) days from the filing date of this order. Defendants shall file
24
their reply no later than fifteen (15) days thereafter.
25
This order terminates docket numbers 52 and 53.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
DATED:
28
11/3/11
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
Order Denying Motion to Compel; Denying Request for Protective Order; Granting Motion for Extension of Time
2
P:\pro-se\sj.lhk\cr.10\Washington250misc2
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?