Troupe v. Pease et al
Filing
62
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS - denying 45 Motion for Protective Order and Transfer; denying 47 Motion to Compel; denying 60 Motion for Protective Order Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)**6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
5
6
7
No.
DAVID TROUPE,
8
4:15-CV-05090-EFS
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
9
10
v.
CHARLES PEASE, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
Before the Court are David Troupe’s Motion for Protective Order
13
and Transfer, ECF No. 45; Motion to Compel WSP, ECF No. 47; and Motion
14
for Protective Order, ECF No. 60.
On November 7, 2016, the Court held
15
a
pretrial
conference
in
one
of
Plaintiff’s
other
lawsuits,
case
16
number 2:13-CV-05038-EFS (Case 5038).
At the hearing, the Court heard
17
argument and made rulings on various issues that Plaintiff also raises
18
in this matter.
Having conducted that hearing, and having reviewed
19
the parties’ submissions, the Court is fully informed.
The Court
20
denies Plaintiff’s motions for the reasons set forth below.
21
I.
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TRANSFER (ECF NO. 45)
22
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Transfer, ECF No.
23
45, raises issues outside the scope of this case.
Plaintiff also
24
fails to demonstrate any interference with his ability to pursue this
25
case.
The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.
26
ORDER - 1
1
A.
Request for Protective Orders
Plaintiff
2
requests
that
the
Court
issue
a
protective
order
3
against Jason Kaehlor, William Hale, and Anthony Gonzalez to prevent
4
physical contact, verbal contact, being within 100 feet, and contact
5
with Plaintiff’s legal work. ECF No. 45.
6
Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion lacks any allegations as to Jason
7
Kaehlor.
8
order as to Jason Kaehlor.
As a preliminary matter, the
The Court therefore finds no basis to issue a protective
According to Plaintiff, Defendant William Hale has called him a
9
10
“fag” and told Plaintiff to kill himself. ECF No. 45.
11
allegations are concerning, this case is not the proper avenue for
12
Plaintiff to litigate new and independent claims, even if made against
13
a
14
interference with his ability to pursue this case.
15
Court
16
appropriate as to Defendant Hale.
current
Defendant.
finds
Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff
17
alleges
requested
that
protective
non-party
Therefore, the
order
would
Anthony
Gonzalez
ECF
45.
not
be
denied
access his legal documents on October 6, 2016, and his access on
21
October 19. ECF No. 53 at 65.
However, Plaintiff fails to establish —
22
and
—
23
deadlines or otherwise caused the type of “actual injury” that is
24
required for an access-to-the-courts claim. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31
25
F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 91 (1995).
26
The Court finds a protective order is not currently necessary to
that
this
No.
any
20
indication
property.
show
concede that nearly two weeks passed between Plaintiff’s request to
ORDER - 2
legal
allegation
19
no
his
Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff
is
to
do
18
there
access
Nor
Although these
caused
him
Defendants
to
miss
any
1
ensure Plaintiff continues to have adequate access to the courts and
2
his files.
3
B.
Request for Transfer
4
Plaintiff argues that placement at Washington State Penitentiary
5
(WSP), rather than at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, is preventing
6
him from properly participating in this lawsuit. ECF No. 45.
7
Court has not directed the Washington State Department of Corrections
8
(DOC) to place Plaintiff in any particular facility.
9
2016,
the
Court
admonished
the
DOC
to
refrain
The
On October 4,
from
repeatedly
10
transferring
11
ability to litigate his cases, including Case 5038, which has pretrial
12
conferences and trial scheduled to take place in the near future.
Plaintiff
in
a
manner
that
would
interfere
with
his
13
The Court remains determined to ensure Plaintiff is afforded
14
adequate access to the courts and a fair opportunity to present his
15
claims.
16
undermine these goals.
17
at WSP suggest he is fully capable of litigating his cases from there.
18
Moreover,
19
Plaintiff’s legal materials have been sent to WSP. ECF No. 53 at 12.
20
Thus, the Court finds no reasonable basis to interfere with DOC’s
21
decision to place Plaintiff at WSP, especially given the need for
22
Plaintiff to be able to litigate Case 5038.
However, the Court finds that placement at WSP does not
Stafford
II.
23
Plaintiff’s numerous filings since placement
Creek
personnel
aver
that
the
entirety
of
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL WSP (ECF NO. 47)
24
Plaintiff also requests that the Court compel WSP to prohibit
25
Shari Hall from handling his legal scans for electronic filing, create
26
a
receipt-signature
ORDER - 3
requirement
for
electronic
filings,
and
limit
1
people who handle legal scans to those who are specifically trained to
2
do so. ECF No. 47.
3
Prisoner
4
Washington
5
orders specifically state that printed notices of electronic filings
6
are to be provided through the institution’s existing mail system.
7
This
8
consideration
9
expanding prisoners’ ability to bring claims, and Defendants have
10
supplied sworn declarations that WSP is in full compliance with the
11
directives implemented under the E-filing Initiative. See Case 5038,
12
ECF No. 276.
13
General Order Nos. 15-35-1 and 16-35-1 govern the
E-Filing
and
Initiative
the
decision
Washington
was
of
created
the
how
to
by
Department
product
limit
of
the
the
of
Eastern
Corrections,
significant
burden
District
on
and
negotiation
prison
staff
of
the
and
while
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that WSP policies interfere with
14
his ability to litigate this case.
Nor has he shown Shari Hall has
15
personally interfered with his litigation or otherwise engaged in
16
misconduct.
The Court therefore denies his motion.
III. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO. 60)
17
18
Most recently, Plaintiff asks the Court to prohibit Defendant
19
Hale from having any contact with Plaintiff, and to prohibit Defendant
20
R
21
property.
22
denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Jason
Morgan
from
having
any
contact
with
Plaintiff’s
legal
As it addresses issues outside the case at hand, the Court
23
Plaintiff reiterates the allegations against Defendant Hale made
24
in his earlier Motion for Protective Order and Transfer, ECF No. 45,
25
addressed above, and adds allegations that Defendant Hale physically
26
assaults Plaintiff by digging fingers into his arm during escorts. ECF
ORDER - 4
1
No. 60.
2
of this case.
Even if true, Plaintiff’s allegations lie outside the scope
3
Plaintiff accuses Defendant R Jason Morgan of “using his notary
4
service to read [Plaintiff]’s legal documents” after he had requested
5
notary service from the law librarian for documents relating to this
6
case. ECF No. 60.
Again, however, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
7
Defendant
acting
8
undermined Plaintiff’s ability to litigate this case, and the Court
9
will not interfere unnecessarily with the internal operations of the
10
Morgan
prison facility.
as
a
notary
in
the
prison
context
has
The Court therefore denies his motion.
IV.
11
MOVING FORWARD
As this case progresses, the Court admonishes the DOC to ensure
12
13
Plaintiff continues to have adequate access to the courts.
14
Court has already advised Plaintiff in Case 5038, the Court is aware
15
that Plaintiff faces challenges in pursuing this litigation, but notes
16
that
17
especially
18
simultaneously.
19
has, when appropriate, extended deadlines and granted reconsideration
20
of issues to ensure Plaintiff is not denied access to the courts.
21
That said, the Court’s flexibility is not permission for Plaintiff to
22
air his every grievance against Defendants, WSP, and/or the DOC.
23
DOC is given broad authority to implement practices and procedures —
24
even
25
penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
26
The
many
if
a
challenges
prisoner
wishes
—
are
chooses
inherent
to
when
litigate
any
individual
multiple
—
lawsuits
Because of these inherent difficulties, the Court
inconvenient
Court
ORDER - 5
such
As this
to
—
that
make
are
clear
reasonably
to
related
Plaintiff
that
to
The
legitimate
“adequate”
or
1
“reasonable” access to the courts is not synonymous with “unfettered”
2
access.
3
the narrow scope of his claims in this case.
Plaintiff is to refrain from filing motions that are outside
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
5
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Transfer, ECF No.
45, is DENIED.
6
7
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel WSP, ECF No. 47, is DENIED.
8
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 60, is DENIED.
9
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall enter this
Order and provide copies to Plaintiff, all counsel, and the DOC.
11
12
13
21st
DATED this ___ day of November 2016.
14
_______
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\Troupe;15-5090.Deny.Motions.LC1.docx
ORDER - 6
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?