Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05801-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S.A., eta. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5801 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 80) 

Kevin Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil

rights by federal actors. 

On December 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Compel Bureau of

Prisons to Deliver Walker’s Legal Mail According to their Policy.” In this pleading, Plaintiff

complaints that his legal mail has been unofficially opened outside of his presence by the

Terminal Island Facility mail room in violation of his rights. Plaintiff also complains that this

Court’s Findings and Recommendations gave him thirty days from the date of delivery to

respond but the Court docket only gave him until October 8, 2006, only three days after the Court

sent it. 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is mistaken in his statement that the Court only granted

him three days. The Findings and Recommendations gave Plaintiff thirty days from the date of

service of the Order, not thirty days from the date it was delivered to him. Also, the Court docket

shows a deadline of November 8, 2006, not October 8, 2006, as Plaintiff states. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s request to compel delivery of his mail, the Court is without

Case 1:02-cv-05801-AWI -GSA Document 81 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

jurisdiction to issue such an Order. First, Motions to Compel are reserved to compel disclosure

of discovery, not actions by parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). Second, Plaintiff’s complaints about

mail do not raise constitutional concerns that can be addressed in this action. 

The mere fact that prison officials open and conduct a visual inspection of a prisoner’s

legal correspondence does not state a claim for violation of a prisoner’s constitutional rights. See

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974); Mitchell v. Dupnick, 75 F.3d 517, 523 (9th

Cir. 1996). Prison officials may, consistent with the First Amendment, open mail from attorneys

in the presence of the prisoner for visual inspection. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

576-7 (1974); Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 1981). In Wolff v.

McDonnell, the Supreme Court noted that inspecting mail from attorneys in the presence of the

inmate did all, and perhaps even more, than the Constitution requires. Id. at 577. The issue of

whether or not prison officials may also, consistent with the First Amendment, open and visually

inspect mail from attorneys outside the presence of the prisoner has not been decided by the

Supreme Court or by the Ninth Circuit. In Wolff v. McDonnell, the legal mail at issue was mail

sent to respondent from his own attorney. Correspondence between an attorney and a client is

entitled to special protection under the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff should note, however

that “[m]ail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal

mail.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). “All

correspondence from a court to a litigant is a public document, which prison personnel could if

they want inspect in the court’s files.” Id. at 1094 (citing Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th

Cir. 1987)).

In light of the above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05801-AWI -GSA Document 81 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2