Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01817/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01817-0/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

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 10cv1817 JLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL K. PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOWARD et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 10cv1817 JLS (PCL)

ORDER SUBMITTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND STRIKE FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT;

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

PREPARE RESPONSE AS

MOOT; and

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE

COURTS

(Doc. Nos. 37; 41.)

ORDER SUBMITTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

On January 10, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike First Amended Complaint

on grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing the First Amended

Complaint and Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) On

February 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No.

Case 3:10-cv-01817-BAS-PCL Document 42 Filed 02/23/11 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

1

The Court recently revisited and significantly limited Bounds in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343

(1996). In Lewis, the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) appealed an injunction imposed by

the District Court for the District of Arizona -- upheld by the Ninth Circuit -- requiring the ADOC to

significantly upgrade their law library facilities. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, reversed

because of the failure to find imminent actual injury resultant from existing conditions. Id. at 349-353

& n.3. As such, Lewis is a significant reshaping of the right of access to the courts in two respects: the

clarification that every such claim must be founded upon actual injury, and the restriction of the scope

of the right to only certain types of claims.

2 10cv1817 JLS

30) to which Defendants have replied. (See Doc. No. 31.) The Motion to Dismiss is hereby

SUBMITTED on the papers and the hearing date of February 25, 2011 is VACATED.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO PREPARE RESPONSE AS MOOT

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Prepare

Response. (Doc. No. 37.) At this time, the Court notes Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 4, 2011, and no other responses are required from

Plaintiff at this time. (See Doc. No. 30.) As such, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is denied as MOOT. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE COURTS

The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to the Courts. (Doc. No. 41.) Plaintiff

requests, among other things: (1) electronic delivery of cases and statutes with commentary (Doc. No.

41 at 1); (2) for the “Court to come up with solution” (Id. at 41.); and (3) “for Judge to send copy of

Amended Complaint to following news agencies.” (Doc. No. 41-2 at 1.) Because the crux of Plaintiff’s

requests is some form of aid in the litigation of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s

requests as a Motion for Access to the Courts. (Doc. No. 41.) 

In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court 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 828.1

 Further, the right of access is only

guaranteed for certain types of claims: direct and collateral attacks upon a conviction or sentence, and

civil rights actions challenging the conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354

Case 3:10-cv-01817-BAS-PCL Document 42 Filed 02/23/11 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 10cv1817 JLS

(1996). Even within these boundaries, the right does not require prison officials to provide materials

beyond those that would enable a prisoner to bring their grievance before the Court. “Impairment of

any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences

of conviction and incarceration.” Id. at 355. 

Although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s requests, it is not the Court’s responsibility to aid

Plaintiff in the litigation of his claims. Plaintiff has not shown instances which would give rise to a

constitutional claim such as “a complaint he prepared was dismissed” because he was unable to gain

library access, or that he was “so stymied” by inadequate law library access that “he was unable to even

file a complaint.” Id. at 351. Moreover, Plaintiff appears to receive adequate library access and the

same legal services as does any other incarcerated Plaintiff litigating the same types of claims. (See

Doc. No. 37.) As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to the Courts is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2011

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-01817-BAS-PCL Document 42 Filed 02/23/11 Page 3 of 3