Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01546/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 06cv1546-WQH(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN SPENCER,

Petitioner,

v.

R. WONG, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1546-WQH(NLS)

ORDER RE: MOTION REQUESTING

PRO PER STATUS WITHIN COUNTY

JAIL & MOTION REQUESTING

DOCKET LISTING DUE TO NO

REPLY BY RESPONDENT

[Doc. Nos. 37 & 39]

On July 31, 2006, Petitioner Nathan Spencer (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 regarding the revocation of his

parole and subsequent return to custody. Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion Requesting

Pro per Status Within County Jail and Declaration in support [Doc. No. 37]. Petitioner requests a

transfer from George Bailey Detention Center in San Diego, California, where he is currently

incarcerated, to Central County Jail in San Diego, California, where he was previously housed. 

Petitioner argues that the transfer is necessary to ensure that he has increased access to a prison law

library and assistance typing his legal papers. (Petitioner’s Motion, 2.) This is Petitioner’s second

request that the Court arrange for his transfer to Central County Jail. His first request was based on

substantially similar reasons. (See Petitioner’s March 12, 2007 Motion, Doc. No. 33.) 

Petitioner states in his motion that the “limited library access” at George Bailey is “in fact

injurious to Petitioner’s ability to adequately prosecute petition and in a timely fashion.” (Petitioner’s

Motion, 2.) Petitioner then goes on to detail how inmates at Central County Jail receive additional

Case 3:06-cv-01546-WQH-NLS Document 40 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv1546-WQH(NLS)

assistance with typing and filing legal papers, and that inmates at George Bailey do not have legal paper

or pens. Petitioner states that these factors have “crippled Petitioner’s due diligence in fighting this

case,” and cites the seminal Supreme Court decision regarding inmates’ access to courts, Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). (Id.)

 Inmates have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97

(1977). The Supreme Court has held that “the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts

requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by

providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons who are trained in

the law.” Id. at 828. In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the Supreme Court clarified and delimited

the scope of the right. To state a claim for interference with the right of access to the courts, an inmate

must establish that inadequate facilities or interfering regulations have actually frustrated or impeded a

non-frivolous (1) criminal trial or appeal, (2) habeas proceeding, or (3) section 1983 case challenging

the condition of his confinement. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355; Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.

1989). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that he has been denied the access to the courts

guaranteed by Bounds and Lewis. Petitioner does not allege or establish a casual link between his

reduced access to the law library and any actual injury, such as an inability to prosecute his petition

adequately or in a timely fashion, as he must do pursuant to Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

Petitioner does not require assistance typing his legal papers in order to proceed with the litigation of his

case, as this Court allows the filing of handwritten legal documents by pro se litigants that otherwise

comport with the requirements for filing under the Local Rules of the Court. Petitioner has filed several

motions in proper pleading form since his transfer to George Bailey. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Pro Per Status Within County Jail [Doc. No. 37]. 

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion Requesting Docket Listing Due to No Reply By

Respondent and 42 U.S.C. 1983 Civil Rights Rules of Court and Declaration” [Doc. No. 39]. In this

motion, Petitioner requests a docket history of this case as well as a copy of the Court’s Local Rules. 

(Petitioner’s Motion, 1.) With respect to this request, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner a copy of

the current docket sheet and Local Rules via U.S. Mail on May 23, 2007. However, the Court notes that

Case 3:06-cv-01546-WQH-NLS Document 40 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 06cv1546-WQH(NLS)

the request appears based on Petitioner’s mistaken belief that Respondent to date has not filed a

responsive pleading in this matter. Petitioner does not seem aware of the fact that Respondent filed a

Motion to Dismiss the Petition on March 29, 2007 [Doc. No. 34]. As the Court advised Petitioner in its

February 13, 2007 Order Requiring a Response to the Petition [Doc. No. 31], Respondent had the option

of filing a motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an Answer to the Petition. A motion to dismiss the petition

does not address the merits of Petitioner’s claims, but rather addresses all grounds upon which

Respondent contends dismissal of the petition without reaching the merits of Petitioner’s claims is

warranted. Respondent exercised the option to file a motion to dismiss, and therefore Petitioner had

until April 30, 2007 to file his opposition, if any. Petitioner has not filed an Opposition, which the Court

presumes is due to Petitioner’s misunderstanding of the current procedural posture of this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Clerk of this Court shall promptly (a) serve a copy of Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss [Doc. No. 34] and (b) a copy of this Order on Petitioner; 

2. Petitioner shall file his Opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss no later than 

June 29, 2007. At the time the opposition is filed, Petitioner shall lodge with the Court

any records not lodged by Respondent which Petitioner believes may be relevant to the

Court’s determination of the motion;

3. Unless the Court orders otherwise, Respondent shall not file a reply to Petitioner’s

opposition to a motion to dismiss. If the motion is denied, the Court will afford

Respondent adequate time to respond to Petitioner’s claims on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01546-WQH-NLS Document 40 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 3