Bell v. Becker-Green et al

Filing 75

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 67 Motion to Produce and 71 Motion for Continuance, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke. Plaintiff's 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment is re-noted for consideration to 1/26/2018. **4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Rey Bell, Prisoner ID: 854487)(GMR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

REY DAVIS-BELL, a/k/a BILAL IMAN,
Case No. 3:17-cv-05319-BHS-TLF

7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PRODUCE AND
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

v.
D. DAHNE, et al,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to produce legal paperwork

12

(Dkt. 67) and motion for a continuance to reply to defendants’ response to plaintiff’s motion for

13

summary judgment (Dkt. 71).

14

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was re-noted for consideration on December

15

15, 2017, pending the parties’ efforts to settle plaintiff’s remaining claims. Dkt. 60-61. Plaintiff

16

filed his motion to produce legal paperwork on December 7, 2017. Dkt. 67. Plaintiff states in that

17

motion that he was transferred from the Washington State Penitentiary on October 27, 2017, and

18

arrived at the Monroe Correctional Complex (“MCC”) on November 6, 2017. Id.

19

Plaintiff states that per Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policy, two boxes of property

20

are to be shipped with an inmate upon transfer to another prison facility. Dkt. 67. Plaintiff states

21

that on November 20, 2017, he requested assistance from an MCC counselor in obtaining legal

22

paperwork that “pertains to this matter” – which since his transfer he had been without – and that

23

the next day that counselor requested it on his behalf. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff further states that on

24
25
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PRODUCE AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 1

1

December 6, 2017, he was informed that two boxes had arrived for him, but that neither box

2

contained the requested paperwork. Id.

3

Plaintiff asserts that without his legal paperwork, he is unable to reply to defendant in

4

regard to their response to his summary judgment motion. On December 14, 2017, plaintiff filed

5

his motion for a 30-day continuance to reply to defendants’ response to his motion for summary

6

judgment, again on the basis of lack of access to his legal paperwork. Dkt. 71.

7

In response to plaintiff’s motion to produce his legal paperwork defendants state:

8

At the time of his transport to the Monroe Correctional Complex, two
boxes of Plaintiff’s property was shipped with him on the transport bus. There
is one remaining box of Plaintiff’s property at the Washington Corrections
Center. However, he has yet to provide the funds to cover the shipping costs.
None of Plaintiff’s boxes were marked “Legal” or stated they had legal
documents as contents. . . .

9
10
11

Dkt. 68, p. 2. Defendants object to plaintiff’s motion on the basis that:
12
(1)

he “failed to properly follow the procedure to ensure any additional
personal legal records that he may need would be transported with him”;
and

(2)

16

“while the additional box may contain some of his personal legal
pleadings, it may also contain other personal items that the Department
would be required to transport that go well beyond any necessary legal
access that he may need.”

17

Id. In response to plaintiff’s motion for a continuance, defendants state they have no objection to

18

such a continuance, but disclaim any “knowledge or information regarding the factual allegations

19

contained in [that] motion, and disagree that he does not have access to adequate legal resources

20

at the [MCC].” Dkt. 73, at pp. 1-2.

13
14
15

21

The Court notes at the outset that plaintiff did not allege he lacks access to adequate legal

22

resources at the MCC, but rather that he lacks access to his own legal paperwork. See Dkt. 71. In

23

addition, DOC Policy 440.020 expressly states: “The following items will also be transported

24
25
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PRODUCE AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 2

1

with the offender, but will not be included in the 2 box limit: . . . Legal documents/papers needed

2

to meet a court imposed deadline, boxed/bagged and labeled using DOC 21-329 Property – ID

3

Label.” Dkt. 69-1, pp. 3-4. The plain meaning of this rule would seem to be that as long as the

4

legal documents/papers are properly labeled per DOC 21-329, an inmate is entitled to receive

5

them beyond the 2 box limit. Id.

6

As noted above, defendants assert the one remaining box of plaintiff’s was not marked as

7

“Legal” or otherwise indicated it contained legal documents. It is not clear whether or not that is

8

what is needed to satisfy the requirements of DOC 21-329. Be that as it may, plaintiff has not

9

made any claim or showing that the remaining box was marked in such a way as to indicate to

10

prison staff at the time of his transfer or thereafter that it contained any legal documents/papers

11

needed to meet a court imposed deadline.

12

Nevertheless, plaintiff does allege he asked a counselor at the MCC to request his legal

13

paperwork, and that the counselor did so. While plaintiff does not allege he indicated to that

14

counselor or any other prison official at the time of transport or upon his arrival at the MCC that

15

the third box contained legal paperwork needed to meet a court imposed deadline, he has now

16

done so – at least to defense counsel – via the two motions he has filed. Further, the Court sees

17

no reason, and defendants have not presented any argument, as to why they cannot now work

18

with plaintiff to transfer the pertinent legal paperwork transferred to him, even though it may be

19

he did not follow proper DOC policy in the first place.

20

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to produce legal paperwork (Dkt. 67) is GRANTED.

21

Defendants shall assist plaintiff in obtaining all remaining legal paperwork that pertains to his

22

motion for summary judgment and defendants’ response thereto that may be contained in the

23

remaining third box. Further, since DOC Policy 440.020 does not require plaintiff to pay for the

24
25
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PRODUCE AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 3

1

transfer of legal documents/papers needed to meet a court imposed deadline, plaintiff shall not be

2

required to do so. This Order, however, only entitles plaintiff to receive that legal paperwork that

3

pertains to the summary judgment and defendants’ response.

4

To give plaintiff sufficient time to reply to defendants’ summary judgment response,

5

furthermore, his motion for a 30-day continuance to do so (Dkt. 71) also is GRANTED. Plaintiff

6

thus shall file his reply by no later than January 19, 2018. Accordingly, the Clerk shall re-note

7

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for consideration on January 26, 2018.

8

Dated this 21st day of December, 2017.

9
10

A

11
12

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PRODUCE AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 4