Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01253-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauepris in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Defendant’s counsel 

to communicate with him by mail only. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff contends that communicating with 

defense counsel by telephone in front of officers violates his right to privacy and triggers his post 

traumatic stress disorder. (Id.) 

Plaintiff is informed that the attorney-client privilege is not necessarily implicated in his 

communications with attorneys who do not represent him. See, e.g, Giba v. Cook, 232 F.Supp.2d 

1171, 1187 (D. Or. 2002). Nor does Plaintiff's right of self-representation transform his legal 

materials into confidential attorney work product or provide him routine access to confidential 

telephone calls. In addition to the requirement that Plaintiff establish a resulting injury, a prisoner's 

MELVIN R. ARRANT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO 

COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL 

BY MAIL ONLY

(ECF No. 44)

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 2
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

right of access to the courts must be balanced with a prison's “penological interest in curtailing the 

prisoner's privacy rights. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984) (inmates have no 

expectation of privacy in their living quarters); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979) (prisoner's 

privacy rights curtailed by prison's security interests).” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133 (9th 

Cir.2001). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he has been denied access to the court by any telephone 

communication with defense. The mere fact that Plaintiff prefers to communicate with defense 

counsel by mail does not warrant a court order mandating communication in such form. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s request to communication with defense counsel by telephone only is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2021 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01253-KES-SAB Document 45 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 2