Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01510/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01510-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL F. HARRISON,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-2000 KJM CKD P

vs.

SERGEANT LINDE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A motion to sever filed by two of the four named

defendants is pending, and two motions filed by plaintiff are before the court.

I. Motion for Court Order Regarding Evidence

Plaintiff has filed a motion styled as “Motion for Court Order that Defendants and

their Associates and Company Give up Documents and Evidence.” (Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiff

requests the court to order the defendants and their attorneys to provide him with a multitude of

documents which he contends would support his claims in this action. Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied. Plaintiff may seek discovery at the appropriate time in accordance with the discovery

and scheduling order which will issue following resolution of the pending motion to sever.

1

Case 2:13-cv-01510-KJM-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/25/13 Page 1 of 5
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

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking, in part, for an extension of time to file (1) a

reply to defendants answer and (2) an opposition to the pending motion to sever. Neither the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this court’s Local Rules provide for a reply to an answer

absent a court order. Plaintiff states that he has 21 days to file a reply to defendants’ answer

under Rule 12(a)(1)(C), however plaintiff misinterprets the rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(c) only

authorizes a reply to an answer when the court orders a reply. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for

extension of time to file a reply to defendants’ answer will be denied. However, his motion for

extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to sever will be granted.

Plaintiff also requests the court to order that he be given access to the law library,

that he be provided with legal supplies, and that his legal property be returned to him. Plaintiff

contends that “although he is given access to legal work tools, the access is not capable of

allowing plaintiff to meaningful access.” (Dkt. No. 29 at 2.) In support of his request, plaintiff

states that he has only been allowed law library access three times in the past four months, that he

has had to borrow an ink pen from other inmates on occasion, and that he has had limited access

to the copy machines. (Id.)

An inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the

courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-821 (1977). This right encompasses more than

access to an adequate law library: it includes access to “paper and pen to draft legal documents

with notarial services to authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.” Id. at 824-25. To

prevail, however, it is not enough for an inmate to show some sort of denial; he must also show

“actual injury” from the denial or delay of services. The Supreme Court has described the actual

injury requirement as follows:

[T]he inmate therefore must go one step further and demonstrate

that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance

program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might

show, for example, that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for

failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of

2

Case 2:13-cv-01510-KJM-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/25/13 Page 2 of 5
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

deficiencies in the prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not

have known. Or that he suffered arguably actionable harm that he

wished to bring before the courts, but was so stymied by

inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a

complaint.

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996).

This is plaintiff’s second request for the court to issue an order that legal materials

be provided to him and that legal property be returned to him. In the court’s order of October 18,

2012, plaintiff’s motion was denied on the following basis:

[P]laintiff’s motion is not specific as to the nature of his legal

material that prison officials are allegedly withholding, nor to any

specific injury that he has suffered as a result. In addition, to any

extent prison officials have denied him legal materials or services,

it is clear that denial has not blocked him from filing the instant

motions or other requests for relief in this case. Under these

circumstances, the court finds that plaintiff has not shown actual

injury from the denial of materials and services at this time.

It is further noted that plaintiff does not name the prison officials

who are allegedly withholding legal materials or services from

him. As a general rule, this court is unable to issue an injunctive

order against individuals or entities who are not parties to the suit

pending before it. See Zenigh Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research,

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969). Likewise, if the injury caused by

the alleged deprivation hinders plaintiff from pursuing a claim

other than the ones alleged in this case, the deprivation and injury

are not redressable in this case. See, e.g., Benyamini v. Manjuano,

2011 WL 4963108 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) (“This Court 

lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring prison officials to transfer [plaintiff] based on

retaliatory acts occurring after this action was filed, because the Court does not have such a case

or controversy before it in this action. [Citations.]”).

Dkt. No. 16 at 2-3.

Plaintiff still has not identified with specificity the nature of his legal

property/material to which he is allegedly being denied access, and by whom. In addition, since

plaintiff is being provided with some access to the law library, albeit not as much as he desires,

the court should decline to intervene in internal prison affairs at this time to order additional

access, particularly in light of the granting of the extension of time for plaintiff to respond to

defendants’ motion for severance. Plaintiff states he needs the extra law library time to file

3

Case 2:13-cv-01510-KJM-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/25/13 Page 3 of 5
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

“replies and oppositions, and motions,” however, at this point, defendants’ motion to sever is the

only matter plaintiff need address. The law on permissive joinder is as follows.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2), multiple defendants may be joined in one

action if: (1) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative

with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences; and (2) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350-52 (9th Cir. 1997). 

As long as these requirements are satisfied, a plaintiff may join as many claims as he has against

any defendant, even if those claims are unrelated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).

Unrelated claims against different defendants, however, should be pursued in

separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended

“not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but

also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act

limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment

of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. If the test for permissive joinder is not satisfied,

a court, in its discretion, may sever the misjoined parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for court order regarding evidence (Dkt. No. 28) is

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a reply to defendants’

answer is DENIED; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an opposition to

defendants’ motion to sever is GRANTED, and plaintiff has an additional

30 days from the date of this order to file and serve his opposition.

/////

/////

4

Case 2:13-cv-01510-KJM-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/25/13 Page 4 of 5
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

In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order for access to the law library and for

legal material to be returned to him (Dkt. No. 29) be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 22, 2013

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

harr2000.36(2).misc

5

Case 2:13-cv-01510-KJM-CKD Document 30 Filed 02/25/13 Page 5 of 5