Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03324/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03324-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH ALLEN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW DEEMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03324-HSG (PR) 

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING 

MOTIONS; DIRECTING DEFENDANTS 

TO RESPOND TO PENDING MOTIONS 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 36

Plaintiff Keith Allen Lewis, Sr., a California inmate, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Docket No. 11. This matter is now 

before the Court for consideration of two miscellaneous filings from Plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Unlimited Copying Services (Docket No. 24)

Plaintiff has requested that the Court order Defendants to provide him with unlimited 

copying services1 when he visits the SQSP law library. See Docket No. 24. Plaintiff alleges that 

he is limited to fifty copies per case number and that, as of September 22, 2014, Defendants have 

refused to provide him with any copies, thereby violating his constitutional right of access to the 

courts. See id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that these restrictions have impeded his ability to “timely 

submit meritorious documents and exhibits to the Court and defendants, exhibits and documents 

 

1 Because Plaintiff has not mentioned the cost of photocopying, the Court presumes Plaintiff does 

not seek unlimited free photocopying and only addresses whether Plaintiff is entitled to unlimited 

photocopying. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to free 

photocopying. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir.1991) (citing Sands v. Lewis, 886 

F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.1989) (“numerous courts have rejected any constitutional right to free 

and unlimited photocopying”)).

Case 4:14-cv-03324-HSG Document 39 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which will substatiate (sic) Plaintiff’s claims.” Id. Plaintiff further claims that he will need to 

submit copies of courts documents, discovery requests, and CDCR appeals in support of claims 

which he has recently filed with California’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims 

Board [hereinafter Claims Board]. Id.

The Ninth Circuit has concluded that “an inmate has a right to photocopying . . . when, and 

only when, necessary to guarantee him meaningful access to the courts.” Hiser v. Franklin, 94 

F.3d 1287, 1294 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1996). To establish a claim for any violation of the right of access 

to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the prison’s legal access 

program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350–55 (1996). To 

prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison’s program 

hindered his efforts to purse a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of 

confinement. See id. at 354–55. 

As noted in the Court’s initial screening order, Plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim 

that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. See Docket No. 15 at 2.2 However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the 

restrictions on photocopying have hindered his efforts to pursue the instant action. 

As an initial matter, the record contradicts Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants have denied 

him photocopies since September 22, 2014. On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled, 

“Offer of Proof and Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Attached Exhibit #LKL.” See Docket 

No. 26 [hereinafter Offer of Proof]. Attached to the Offer of Proof is a 45-page exhibit, which 

consists of copies of Plaintiff’s CDCR Health Care Services Requests. See id. at 16–61.3 The 

proof of service for the Offer of Proof states that Plaintiff served this document on Defendants, 

 

2

The Court conducted an initial screening of Plaintiff’s complaint as required by Section 

1915A(a) of the United States Code, Title 28. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court 

identified cognizable claims, and dismissed any claims which were frivolous or malicious; failed 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or sought monetary relief from a defendant who 

is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

3 References to pages of filed documents are to the page numbers that are automatically assigned 

by the Court’s electronic filing system and appear in the upper right-hand corner of the pages of 

filed documents.

Case 4:14-cv-03324-HSG Document 39 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which indicates that Plaintiff made a copy of this 63-page document. See id. at 62. On April 14, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled, “Supplemental Declaration in Support of Exhibit #LKL(2) 

and Additional Offers of Proof in Support of the Issuance of a T.R.O.” See Docket No. 28 

[hereinafter Supplemental Declaration]. There is a 19-page exhibit attached to this Supplemental 

Declaration, which consists of copies of Plaintiff’s health-related correspondence and documents. 

See id. at 4–23. The proof of service for the Supplemental Declaration states that Plaintiff served 

this document on Defendants, which indicates that Plaintiff made a copy of this 23-page 

document. See id. at 24. 

Moreover, the record shows that Plaintiff has been able to vigorously pursue the instant 

action despite Defendants’ restrictions on his photocopying. Since he filed this request for 

unlimited photocopying, he has filed six motions (including the Offer of Proof and Supplemental 

Declaration), three of which have exhibits attached. See Docket Nos. 26, 28, 33, 34, 36 and 37. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s allegation that the photocopying restrictions are interfering with his 

ability to submit claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board 

fails to state a claim for denial of access to the courts. The ability to file claims with the Claims 

Board implicates access to the courts because the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) requires a 

plaintiff to present a written claim to the Claims Board within six months of the accrual of the 

action before a plaintiff may maintain an action for damages against a public employee. See Cal. 

Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2(a), 945.4 & 950.2; Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 

1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, if photocopying restrictions prevented Plaintiff from presenting 

claims to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, this restriction would 

constitute denial of access to the courts since it would prevent him from maintaining an action for 

damages and pleading a state tort claim in state or federal court. See State of California v. 

Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243–44 (2004). However, Plaintiff’s own pleadings 

indicate that he has successfully presented his claims to the Claims Board, thereby preserving his 

access to the courts for these claims.4 See Docket No. 24 at 3–6.

 

4

Plaintiff does not specify the subject matter of the claims which he has presented to the Claims 

Board so the Court is unable to determine whether these claims are non-frivolous. See, e.g.,

Case 4:14-cv-03324-HSG Document 39 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that Defendants’ photocopying restrictions 

have caused him actual injury. Plaintiff’s request for unlimited photocopying is DENIED. 

(Docket No. 24.) However, to mitigate Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the photocopying 

restrictions, the Court will not require Plaintiff to serve his pleadings on Defendants’ counsel of 

record, pursuant to the instructions below. Plaintiff is also advised that, in order to reduce the 

number of pages to be photocopied, he need not resubmit exhibits upon which he intends to rely 

where such exhibits have been previously submitted by him in earlier filings, submitted by 

Defendants, or otherwise are contained in the record of the case, provided Plaintiff cites to any 

such previously-submitted exhibit and adequately identifies where it can be located in the record.

II. Ex Parte Request for Court-Ordered Telephonic Calls (Docket No. 36)

Plaintiff has submitted an ex parte request that the Court order “telephonic calls with the 

Clerk of this Court, discovery facilitator, defense counsel, and to appear through ‘Court Call’ an 

independent vendor service by making arrangements with Court Call service five days in advance 

before the hearing date set . . .” Docket No. 36 at 1. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. (Docket No. 

36.) Plaintiff may communicate with defense counsel and the Clerk of the Court via written 

communications. He has not demonstrated why telephonic communication with defense counsel 

or the Clerk of the Court is necessary. There is no discovery facilitator in this case. There are 

currently no hearings set in this case. If a hearing is required, the Court will issue the necessary 

orders to ensure Plaintiff’s telephonic appearance. 

III. Motions for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket Nos. 23 and 37)

Plaintiff has filed two motions for a temporary restraining order. See Docket Nos. 23 and 

37. Defendants have not filed a response to either motion. Within fourteen (14) days of the date 

of this order, Defendants shall file a response. The Court will consider these motions fully 

submitted as of that date.

//

 

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415–16 (2002) (underlying claim must be “described well 

enough to apply the ‘nonfrivolous’ test”); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348–49, 353 (to state an access to 

courts claim, inmate must “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was 

being impeded”) (internal footnote omitted).

Case 4:14-cv-03324-HSG Document 39 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s request for unlimited photocopying is DENIED. (Docket No. 24.) The 

Court will not require Plaintiff to himself serve Defendants with copies of his filings. Rather, 

Plaintiff may file his papers with the Court, and the Clerk will scan such filings into the Court’s 

electronic filing system (“ECF”), from which Defendants may obtain the filings.

2. Plaintiff’s ex parte request for court-ordered telephonic calls is DENIED. (Docket 

No. 36.)

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file a response 

to Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order (Docket Nos. 23 and 37). 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 24 and 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/1/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03324-HSG Document 39 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 5