Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03286/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03286-18/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-05-3286 ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY MOTION (Docket Nos. 161, 174) Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-3286 CW (JL)

ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY

MOTION

(Docket Nos. 161, 174) 

Introduction

All discovery in this case was referred by the district court (Hon. Claudia Wilken) as

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The Court considered the papers

and hereby grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to Evidence. Compliance with the Court’s

order shall be due two weeks from the e-filing of this Order. 

Factual Background

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges that: Plaintiffs are incarcerated at

the Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) Special Housing Unit (SHU). Todd Lewis Ashker

(Ashker) was sentenced to a six year prison term for burglary in 1984. In 1990, he was

convicted of second-degree murder of another inmate at PBSP and was sentenced to a

prison term of twenty-one years to life. Ashker has been housed in the SHU at PBSP since

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 182 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was formerly known as

the California Department of Corrections. 

C-05-3286 ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY MOTION (Docket Nos. 161, 174) Page 2 of 6

1990. Danny Troxell (Troxell) pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 1979 and is serving a

sentence of twenty-six years to life. Troxell has been housed in the SHU since 1989. 

Plaintiffs were placed in the SHU because of their alleged membership in or

association with the Aryan Brotherhood (AB) prison gang; they were each re-validated as

gang members on July 8, 2003. Both deny that they are AB members or associates. Due

to their alleged gang associations, they are housed in the SHU on “indeterminate” status. 

According to Plaintiffs, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)1

policy is that Plaintiffs cannot be released from the SHU unless they are paroled, they

debrief, or they are inactive in gang activity for a period of six years.

Plaintiffs allege five claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations arising under

the U.S. Constitution: (1) violation of First Amendment freedom to associate; (2) violation of

First Amendment free speech rights; (3) violation of Fifth Amendment freedom against selfincrimination; (4) violation of Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishment; and (5) (a) violation of the ex post facto clause of the United States

Constitution, (b) violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (c)

violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (d) violation of

procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (e)

violation of procedural and substantive due process. Plaintiffs also raise two state law

claims: (6) negligence for violations of duties of care and per se negligence for violation of

15 CCR Sections 3040 and 3343(k); and (7) intentional tort claim for intentional deprivation

of Plaintiffs’ parole rights with malicious intent. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and compensatory

relief.

Defendants deny both that there is a “blanket no-parole policy” for SHU prisoners

and that Plaintiffs have been injured by Defendants’ actions.

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 182 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-05-3286 ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY MOTION (Docket Nos. 161, 174) Page 3 of 6

Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed the present action on August 11, 2005, and filed their first amended

complaint on January 30, 2006. The case was assigned to United States District Judge

Claudia Wilken. The case was first referred to Magistrate Judge James Larson for

discovery purposes on May 19, 2006. 

On February 26, 2007, Plaintiffs filed two motions: (1) Motion to Compel Production

of Documents and (2) Motion to Take Written Deposition. On March 7, 2007, Plaintiffs filed

a Motion for Exchange of Documents and Protective Order. In response, Defendants filed

an Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing Dates on Plaintiffs’ Discovery Motion. On

April 5, 2007, Judge Larson issued an Order staying discovery proceedings and barring the

plaintiffs from filing further discovery motions pending Judge Wilken’s ruling on Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. 

On June 14, 2007, Judge Wilken issued an Order granting in part and denying in

part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Order Granting in part Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and

Den. it in part and Den. in part Pls.’ Mot. to Amend Compl., June 14, 2007.) The Order

permitted four causes of action to move forward: (1) Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for a

First Amendment violation premised on Defendants’ not allowing Plaintiffs access to certain

magazines; (2) Plaintiffs’ due process claims based on Defendants’ procedure for

determining whether Plaintiffs are active or inactive gang members; (3) Plaintiffs’ sixth

cause of action for negligence; and (4) Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action for an intentional

tort. Id. at 24.

On July 6, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 14 Order. 

On August 6, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the latest discovery Motion for Access to Evidence

regarding the magazine ban. Two days later, on August 8, 2007, Judge Wilken referred all

discovery motions to this Court.

Judge Wilken issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Reconsideration on September 20, 2007. The court reconsidered its previous order

relating to Ashker’s claims against the Board of Prison Hearings (BPH) and denied

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 182 Filed 01/14/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-05-3286 ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY MOTION (Docket Nos. 161, 174) Page 4 of 6

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss them. (Order Granting in part and Den. in part Pls.’ Mot. 

for Recons. 8). Therefore, Plaintiffs were also permitted to move forward with the two

claims against the BPH: (1) violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution and (2)

violation of their liberty interests in parole. Id. at 4. 

On September 26, 2007, this Court denied the four pending discovery motions

without prejudice to their being re-filed. Plaintiffs were instructed to modify the scope of his

discovery requests in light of the district court’s orders filed June 14, 2007 and September

20, 2007. Plaintiff resubmitted his Motion to Exchange Legal Material and Protective Order

and Motion for Access to Evidence on October 11, 2007.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Access to Evidence (161)

Plaintiff is requesting permission to view the following eight magazines: Easyrider,

Biker, Outlaw Biker, Tattoo, Savage Tattoo, Tattoo Flash, Heavy Metal, and Juxtapoz. (Ex. 

A to Pls.’ Notice of Mot. and Mot. Requesting Order for Defs.’ to Permit Access to

Evidence, Decl. of Burton Whitcomb 1.) Plaintiffs seek access to these magazines so that

they can take notes for reference in preparing their case and their dispositive motions. Id. 

at 2. Plaintiffs claim that they have not seen said magazines for over five years and that

not being able to view the magazines would prejudice their ability to prosecute their claim. 

(Pl. Ashker’s Decl. in Supp. of Reply Brief [RE: Mot. for Access to Evidence] 2-3.) 

Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ motion on two grounds: first, Defendants contend

that PBSP rules and regulations prohibiting inmates from possessing certain biker and

tattoo magazines are rational; second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have no need to

review the banned magazines to prepare any legal pleading and that they cite no legal

authority entitling them to relief. (Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Access

to Evidence 4-6.) In sum, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs do not need to examine the

magazines to prosecute this lawsuit, they will not be prejudiced by not being able to access

these magazines, and that Plaintiffs should not be allowed to use a civil suit to circumvent

the legitimate rules and regulations of PBSP. Id. at 7. 

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 182 Filed 01/14/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-05-3286 ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY MOTION (Docket Nos. 161, 174) Page 5 of 6

Legal Analysis and Conclusion

In late May 2007 Plaintiff had copies of these eight magazines sent to him by a

private party, with an accompanying declaration stating that the magazines were being sent

“in support of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims concerning the magazine issues.” (Ex. A

to Pl. Todd Lewis Ashker’s Decl. in Supp. of Mot. for Order Allowing Access to Evidence

1.) Plaintiff did not receive formal notice that the magazines had arrived at the prison until

July 5, 2007 and did not receive the accompanying declaration until July 30, 2007. Id. at 2. 

Despite the declaration stating that the magazines were in support of his claim against the

prison, Ashker was denied access to the magazines. The magazines were disapproved

because they are currently banned under PBSP Operating Procedure No. 205 and the

magazines were sent from a private party and thus could not be considered legal mail. See

id.; see also (Ex. A to Pl.’s Notice of Mot. and Mot. Requesting Order for Def.’s to Permit

Access to Evidence, Notice of Disapproval 1.)

Per CDCR policy inmates are not allowed to possess “sexually explicit images that

depict frontal nudity in the form of personal photographs, drawings, magazines, or other

pictorial format.” Title 15, section 3006 of the California Code of Regulations. PBSP has

come up with a list of publishers and publications that are “permanently excluded because

their pervasive theme has been found to meet the exclusionary criteria established in the

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3006, Contraband.” (Ex. C to Decl. of

William Barlow in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Access to Evidence, PBSP Operating Procedure

No. 205, Inmate Mail, Attachment 10.) Each of the eight magazines that Ashker sought to

have delivered to him are listed as banned publications. Id. 

Plaintiff’s second cause of action challenges PBSP Operating Procedure No. 205,

Inmate Mail and Defendants’ ban on numerous magazines on First Amendment grounds. 

Plaintiff contends that the magazines at issue in this claim are the only kind that cover the

“biker lifestyle,” or are artistic in nature, and when taken as a whole are not obscene and

cannot be banned as such. (Pls.’ Reply Brief in Supp. of Mot. for Access to Evidence 1-

2.) Defendants go to great lengths in their opposition to this motion to refute Plaintiffs’ First

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 182 Filed 01/14/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-05-3286 ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY MOTION (Docket Nos. 161, 174) Page 6 of 6

Amendment claim and show that the rule banning certain magazines serves a legitimate

penological purpose. However, whether Plaintiffs’ claim will ultimately be successful has

no bearing on the issue at hand: whether Plaintiffs should be permitted access to evidence

indispensable to building their claim. 

“When prosecuting a lawsuit, a prisoner litigating pro se has the right to undertake

the legal investigation and documentation of his claims in the manner that an attorney

would, subject to the security and disciplinary requirements of the prison.” Valandingham

v. Bodorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs are challenging PBSP

operating procedures on First Amendment grounds. Their claim has survived Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs seek access to these eight magazines, in order to support

their claim against Defendants. Defendants make no showing that allowing limited access

to such magazines poses a serious threat to prison security. Therefore, the Court orders

that Plaintiffs’ request for limited access to the magazines is granted. Mr. Ashker may

review them in a unit holding cell, or other place to be determined by the prison, with prison

supervision, for a limited time, not exceeding two hours. He may take notes for purposes

of developing his case. Compliance with the Court’s order shall be due two weeks from the

e-filing of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2008

__________________________________ JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03286-CW Document 182 Filed 01/14/08 Page 6 of 6