Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02286/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02286-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAI ALKEBU-LAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

K. WEAVER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CIV S-01-2286 JKS

O R D E R

INTRODUCTION

 Shai Alkebu-Lan, a California state prisoner proceeding pro

se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a guard

at the institution in which he was confined. Alkebu-Lan contends

the guard invaded his privacy and interfered with his access to the

Court by intercepting and copying certain allegedly confidential

legal documents belonging to him. The case is currently set for

trial the week of December 5, 2005.

BACKGROUND

Alkebu-Lan filed his complaint in November 15, 2001, in the

Northern District of California. The action was transferred to the

Eastern District of California on December 13, 2001. Alkebu-Lan

exhausted all administrative remedies on November 28, 2001, after

he filed in the Northern District but before the action was

transferred. The Court screened Alkebu-Lan’s complaint under the

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 7
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-01-22826.004.wpd

authority found in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and concluded that it was

deficient. No mention was made of Alkebu-Lan’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing his initial complaint. The

complaint was dismissed without prejudice and Alkebu-Lan was

directed to file a timely amended complaint. Docket No. 2.

Alkebu-Lan filed his amended complaint on February 1, 2002. 

Docket No. 4. The complaint was screened a second time and this

time found to state a claim. The Court therefore provided for the

service of the complaint and summons. Again, no mention was made

of any failure to exhaust remedies. Defendant then moved for

summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

The Court denied the motion, but noted that it would enter a stay

of proceedings to permit the Ninth Circuit to consider an

interlocutory appeal of the matter, if such an appeal was filed. 

Docket No. 58 at 3. 

Defendants filed a permissive interlocutory appeal of the

exhaustion issue. Permission to appeal was granted, and opening

briefing completed. The Ninth Circuit ordered appellants to show

cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. Appellants did not timely respond, and the appeal

was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Following the Court’s direction, Defendants filed a status

report in March, 2005. The status report requested that discovery

be reopened to allow defendants to take Alkebu-Lan’s deposition. 

Discovery was reopened until June 3, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 7
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-01-22836.004.wpd

Several matters require the Court’s attention at this time. 

Alkebu-Lan has filed multiple motions, each of which is addressed

below. 

I . Motion for Sanctions

Alkebu-Lan requests that Defendants be sanctioned for filing a

frivolous appeal. Docket No. 78. He argues that Defendants acted

“vexatiously and unreasonably” and should be sanctioned under Ninth

Circuit Rule 42-1 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. He

states that the appeal was part of a conspiracy to prolong his case

and deplete his resources. He requests sanctions in the amount of

$4,000,000. 

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that the Court does not

have the authority to impose sanctions under these circumstances. 

Docket No. 82. Ninth Circuit Local Rule 42-1 provides that an

appellate court may, in its discretion, impose disciplinary and

monetary sanctions when an appeal is dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that an

appellate court can award damages and costs if it determines that

an appeal was frivolous. 

Defendants’ argument is well taken. Alkebu-Lan originally

filed this motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, along

with a motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief. The

Court of Appeals denied all motions, and stated, “[a]ll further

relief requested by appellee must be filed in the district court.” 

Docket No. 78, Ex. 1. Inasmuch as the motion can be viewed as a

separate motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the

Court, in its discretion, will deny the motion because the appeal

was not frivolous.

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 7
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-01-22846.004.wpd

II. Motion For Appointment of Counsel

Alkebu-Lan moves to have counsel appointed. Docket No. 96. 

He asserts that he is a “layman at law,” and has no assets or

income. The motion is not opposed. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts

lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners

in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.

296, (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the

Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir.

1990); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir. 1991). 

In this case the Court is not sure whether those exceptional

circumstances exist or not. Therefore, the Court will refer this

case to the civil rights panel in this district for review. 

III. Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Interrogatories

Alkebu-Lan moves for an order compelling answers to

interrogatories. Docket No. 91. He filed the interrogatories on

June 3, 2005—the day discovery closed. Defendants oppose the

motion, docket no. 99, arguing that the interrogatories were not

timely, and that they therefore have no obligation to respond. The

motion to compel answers to interrogatories will be denied. 

However, Alkebu-Lan’s counsel, if appointed, or Alkebu-Lan himself,

will have the opportunity to move for a limited reopening of

discovery, should such be necessary.

IV. Motion for Extension of Discovery

Alkebu-Lan moves to extend discovery. Docket No. 91. 

Defendants oppose the motion. Docket No. 99. The motion is

duplicative of the motion to compel answers to interrogatories. In

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 4 of 7
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-01-22856.004.wpd

the scheduling and planning order, the Court “briefly reopened

[discovery] to allow defendants to take the deposition of

plaintiff” and set the completion date for June 3, 2005. The Court

also stated that it would “no longer routinely approve requests or

stipulations for extensions of time for discovery,” and further

noted that interrogatories would be limited to 25. The motion will

be denied. However, as noted above, the Court will entertain a

motion from Alkebu-Lan or his appointed counsel to reopen discovery

for limited, delineated purposes.

V . Motion for Copy of Deposition

Alkebu-Lan further moves to compel Defendants to provide him

with a copy of the transcript of his deposition, without paying

fees. Docket No. 91. Apparently a copy of the deposition was sent

to Alkebu-Lan, but he contends he only received an empty envelope. 

In opposition to the motion, Defendants state that arrangements

have been made to allow Alkebu-Lan to review the transcript under

supervision and to have changes sent to the court reporter. Docket

No. 99. In light of this, the motion will be denied as moot.

VI. Motion of Opposition to Defendants’ Preliminary Statement of

Issues

Alkebu-Lan next ‘moves’ in opposition to defendants’

preliminary statement of issues. Docket No. 93. No opposition has

been filed. In the motion Alkebu-Lan refutes each issue raised by

Defendants. Primarily he takes issue with Defendants’ contention

that some or all of the claims raised in the complaint are barred

by the statute of limitations. As to the other issues cited by

Defendants, Alkebu-Lan states that each “lacks merit” and directs

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 5 of 7
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-01-22866.004.wpd

the Court to various exhibits. These matters are not appropriate

for this kind of motion practice, and will therefore be denied.

VII. Motion for Pretrial Conference to be held at Prison

Finally, Alkebu-Lan moves to have a pretrial conference held

at the prison where he is housed. Docket No. 97. In the motion

Alkebu-Lan reiterates his basic arguments, but does not specify why

the conference should be held at prison, rather than just before

trial at the courthouse. This motion will be denied. 

VIII. Scheduling

Trial is currently scheduled for the week of December 5, 2005. 

In light of the above issues, however, this date will be vacated. 

Furthermore, to allow for the possibility of resolving this matter

without trial, the time for filing dispositive motions will be

briefly reopened.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Alkebu-Lan’s motion for sanctions at Docket No. 78 is DENIED.

The motion for appointment of counsel at Docket No. 96 is GRANTED . 

Alkebu-Lan is cautioned that while the case is under review, he has

responsibility to continue to prosecute this action. The Clerk of

the Court is directed to copy the contents of the file and forward

it to the University of California, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic. 

The Civil Rights Clinic shall inform the Court of its decision at

its earliest convenience. Alkebu-Lan’s motion for an extension of

discovery, and for an order compelling answers to interrogatories,

Docket No. 91 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . The motion is

otherwise DENIED AS MOOT . The motions at Docket Nos. 93 and 97

are DENIED. The trial date in this case, currently set for the

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 6 of 7
ORDER 

C:\Documents and Settings\MKrueger\Local

Settings\Temp\notes101AA1\S-01-22876.004.wpd

week of December 5, 2005, is VACATED . The Court requests a status

report to be filed by Defendants on or before December 30, 2005 ,

which addresses whether Alkebu-Lan has received the assistance of

counsel and proposes new trial dates. At that time the Court will

issue an amended scheduling and planning order that resets the

dispositive motions deadline.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 22 day of November 2005.

/s/ James K. Singleton

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:01-cv-02286-JKS Document 106 Filed 11/22/05 Page 7 of 7