Harris v. Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 22

ORDER directing the clerk to serve Harris with a copy of the Courts form § 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, prisoner trust fund statement, and consent to collection of fees form. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/17/18. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ERIC LATROY HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCMPD (CNT AGENTS),
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By James Burrell at 1:17 pm, Jan 17, 2018

CV417-154

ORDER
Eric LaTroy Harris has sent more letters to the Court complaining
that he is being denied adequate access to the law library and that in
reprisal for filing administrative grievances on the matter, a retaliatory
search was executed on his cell and he was framed for possessing
prohibited items. Docs. 20 & 21. The Court cannot provide him with a
Court order to increase his law library privileges beyond what the CCDC
determines to be adequate, 1 as that type of relief is outside the scope of
his current lawsuit, which concerns his alleged mistreatment at the
hands of Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department CNT

1

Harris contends the CCDC has told him he needs a court order setting forth “a
specific amount of hours per week that [he’s] allowed to have the tablet for the law
library.” Doc. 20 at 3.

agents. See doc. 1. However, Harris may file another Complaint (which
will be screened and incur another filing fee) alleging that he has been
denied meaningful access to legal research materials and retaliated
against for so complaining. 2 The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve Harris
with a copy of the Court’s form § 1983 prisoner civil rights complaint,
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, prisoner trust fund statement, and
consent to collection of fees form.
SO ORDERED, this 17th

day of January, 2018.

2

Even construed as a motion to join CCDC as a party, Harris’ request fails. Two
defendants may be joined in a single action, if “any right to relief is asserted against
them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and . . . any question
of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2). Harris’ excessive-force and library-access claims appear to be related only
through him, and the two claims do not appear to present any common questions of
law or fact. Accordingly, he must pursue his library-access claim, if he chooses to
pursue it at all, in a separate suit.
2