Chennault v. Morris et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying 32 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/21/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

STEVE W. CHENNAULT,
CDCR #D-93021,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

vs.

Civil
13cv0854 BTM (KSC)
No.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(ECF Doc. No. 32)

MORRIS; R. CAMPBELL; N. RIDGE;
LOWE; P. NEWTON; K. SEELY;
M. GLYNN,
Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff has filed a Motion entitled “Notice for Consideration, for Protective

20

Order.” (ECF Doc. No. 32). In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court

21

allowing him to correspond with another inmate who is assisting him in this legal matter

22

if he is transferred to another prison or alternatively, an Order issuing a stay of a transfer

23

until this legal matter is concluded.

24

As to Plaintiff’s request that the Court issue a stay allowing Plaintiff to “remain

25

at [Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility] until the conclusion of this litigation,” this

26

request must be denied. First, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be housed

27

at a particular institution or to receive a particular security classification. See Olim v.

28

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-50 (1983).
1

Second, Plaintiff asserts that the
13cv0854 BTM (KSC)

1

classification committee is currently considering Plaintiff’s transfer but none of the

2

named Defendants in this case are alleged to be members of this classification

3

committee. Therefore, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the members

4

of the prison’s classification committee.

5

As for Plaintiff’s request for a Court Order allowing him to correspond with

6

another inmate, this request must also be denied. The Supreme Court has held that an

7

inmate’s legal assistance to any other inmate is no more deserving of First Amendment

8

protection than any other prisoner speech. Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001)

9

(“[S]ome First Amendment rights are simply inconsistent with the corrections system’s

10

legitimate penological objectives and thus, the Court has sustained restrictions on, e.g.

11

inmate-to-inmate written correspondence.”)

12

To grant Plaintiff’s request would require this Court to interfere with a prison’s

13

regulation. Courts weigh four factors to determine whether a prison regulation is

14

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests: (1) whether there is a valid

15

rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate government interest

16

put forward to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the right

17

that remain open to prison inmates; (3) whether accommodation of the asserted

18

constitutional right will impact guards and other inmates or prison resources generally;

19

and (4) whether there is an absence of ready alternatives versus the existence of obvious,

20

easy alternatives. Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987). In conducting this

21

analysis, courts are to give significant deference to the views of prison officials in light

22

of the “inordinately difficult” nature of prison operation. Id. at 84-85. Plaintiff’s Motion

23

fails to address any of the Turner factors.

24
25

For all the above stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion must be DENIED.
DATED: April 21, 2014

26
27

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

28
2

13cv0854 BTM (KSC)