James v. Emmens et al

Filing 89

ORDER Denying 86 Plaintiff's Motion to Order San Diego Central Jail for Access to the Courts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 01/26/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

KYLE ROBERT JAMES,

Case No.: 16cv2823-WQH (NLS)
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ORDER SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL JAIL FOR ACCESS TO
THE COURTS

DEPUTY EMMENS, et al.,

13

Defendants.
[ECF No. 86]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Kyle Robert James, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an
order directing San Diego Central Jail to grant Plaintiff access to the courts and notice to
the court of Plaintiff’s status regarding legal property and medication. ECF No. 86.
As the Court has previously noted, Plaintiff is currently being held at San Diego
County Central Jail for his criminal retrial, for which he has been appointed counsel.
ECF No. 80 at 1-2. In his instant motion, Plaintiff states that he is being denied “pro per”
status by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department because he has legal representation in his
state court case and, as a result of the denial of this status, he states that he is not
permitted access to the law library or to legal supplies he needs to pursue his pending
§ 1983 actions, including this instant case. He requests that the Court order the San
Diego Sheriff’s Department to grant him “pro per” status, to declare his rights to have
access to the courts and free speech, and to warn the San Diego Sheriff and his deputies

28
1
16cv2823-WQH (NLS)

1

that future disregard for Plaintiff’s rights will result in sanctions. In addition, Plaintiff

2

requests that the Court take notice of that he did not have access to his legal property for

3

10 days and that he was not given his medications for 10 days.

4
5

A. Plaintiff’s Requests Regarding “Pro per” Status and Access to the Law
Library

6

The Court declines to order the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to

7

designate Plaintiff as a “pro per” detainee. While Plaintiff is correct that he has a

8

constitutional right of access to the courts, see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), this

9

is not an unfettered right. Since Bounds, the Supreme Court has stated that the right of

10

access to courts means the right to “bring to court a grievance that the inmate wishes to

11

present.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (emphasis added). However, the

12

right does not include the right to “discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in

13

court.” Id. (“These elaborations upon the right of access to the courts have no antecedent

14

in our pre-Bounds cases, and we now disclaim them.”); see also Hoffman v. Hennessey,

15

No. 09-cv-1777-MHP, 2009 WL 3756628, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009). Thus, courts

16

in this district and the Ninth Circuit have limited this right of access to “only during the

17

pleading stage of a habeas or civil rights action.” Donnan v. Cook, No. 08-cv-2157-

18

DMS, 2010 WL 3431823, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010) (quoting Cornett v. Donovan,

19

51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir.1995)). At this point in time, this case is beyond the pleading

20

stages, since the answer was filed on September 29, 2017 and the deadline for amending

21

pleadings passed on November 3, 2017. ECF Nos. 58, 59. Thus, Plaintiff's request for

22

access to the law library falls outside the scope of the right of access to the courts set

23

forth by the Supreme Court.

24

Furthermore, inmates do not have an “abstract, freestanding right to a law

25

library”—such access is only a means for ensuring access to courts. Lewis, 518 U.S. at

26

351. An inmate claiming interference with or denial of access to the courts must show

27

that he suffered an actual injury. Id. An actual injury is defined as “actual prejudice with

28

respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing
2
16cv2823-WQH (NLS)

1

deadline or to present a claim.” Id. Here, Plaintiff is temporarily in the custody of the

2

San Diego County Central Jail during his criminal retrial. Plaintiff has failed to state an

3

actual injury he has suffered due to the alleged denial of access to the law library and

4

legal supplies during the time he has been in Central Jail. The Court additionally notes

5

that, since Plaintiff arrived in Central Jail on December 21, 2017, Plaintiff has actually

6

been able to file five motions with the Court in this case, including the present motion.

7

See ECF Nos. 73, 75, 79, 83, 86.

8
9

Plaintiff may use this order to show the San Diego County Sheriff Deputies that he
has pro se status in this pending § 1983 federal action and is representing himself.

10

However, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an order to the San Diego County

11

Sheriff’s Department to designate Plaintiff as a “pro per” detainee.

12

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request that the Court declare his rights as to

13

access to the courts and issue warnings to the San Diego Sheriff and his deputies that

14

future disregard for Plaintiff’s rights will result in sanctions. As outlined above, Plaintiff

15

is mistaken about the scope of his rights regarding his access to the courts. Furthermore,

16

what Plaintiff requests from the court is akin to requesting an advisory opinion, which

17

federal courts are prohibited from providing. See Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852,

18

862 (9th Cir. 1992).

19

B. Plaintiff’s Request for “Notice”

20

Finally, as to Plaintiff’s request that the Court take “notice” of the status of his

21

legal property and medications, the Court has read and reviewed the representations that

22

Plaintiff makes in his motion and declaration. However, to the extent that Plaintiff asks

23

the Court to take judicial notice of these statements, the request is DENIED. Judicial

24

notice allows a court to consider “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because

25

it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be

26

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

27

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201. Plaintiff’s allegations that his legal property and

28
3
16cv2823-WQH (NLS)

1

medication were withheld from him are not appropriate “facts” not subject to reasonable

2

dispute for which the Court can take judicial notice.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2018

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16cv2823-WQH (NLS)