Lynn (ID 64377) v. McCurrie et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion seeking a stay and requesting an order granting him phone access 38 is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies Plaintiff's request for phone access. The Court grants Plaintiff an extension of time to pay the filing fee to August 25, 2017. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 08/11/17. Mailed to pro se party Patrick C. Lynn by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PATRICK C. LYNN,
CASE NO. 17-3041-JTM-DJW
ANTHONY McCURRIE, et al.,
Plaintiff, Patrick C. Lynn, is a prisoner currently housed at El Dorado Correctional
Facility in El Dorado, Kansas (“EDCF”). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion
seeking a stay and requesting an order granting him phone access (Doc. 38). On July 17, 2017,
the Court entered an Order (Doc. 19): finding that Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes”
provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); finding that Plaintiff failed to show that he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury; denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 3); and granting Plaintiff until July 31, 2017, to submit the $400.00 filing fee.
August 2, 2017, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 35) extending the deadline for submitting the
$400 filing fee to August 10, 2017, to enable Plaintiff to contact family members for assistance
in paying the fee. Plaintiff’s current motion states that his brother is willing to assist with the
filing fee, and asks the Court to order EDCF staff to allow him a five-minute phone call to his
brother. Plaintiff argues that he needs to explain to his brother the procedures for submitting the
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for phone access. Courts hesitate to interfere with
prison officials’ decisions concerning the day-to-day administration of prisons, to which
deference must be accorded unless they violate the Constitution or federal law. See Overton v.
Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (finding that courts “must accord substantial deference to the
professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining
the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to
accomplish them”); Pinson v. Pacheco, 424 F. App’x 749, 756 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)
(courts normally defer to decisions of prison officials made “in managing the daily operations of
a prison due to the unique nature, needs and concerns of the prison environment”). Plaintiff’s
complaints regarding his phone privileges should be addressed through the prison’s grievance
However, the Court will grant Plaintiff a two-week extension of time to allow Plaintiff to
correspond with his brother regarding the filing fee. No further extensions of time will be
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion seeking a
stay and requesting an order granting him phone access (Doc. 38) is granted in part and denied
in part. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for phone access. The Court grants Plaintiff an
extension of time to pay the filing fee to August 25, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated on this 11th day of August, 2017, in Wichita, Kansas.
s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN
U. S. District Judge
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?