Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02540/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02540-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ALLEN GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREAS RUIZ, et al.

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-CV-2540-IEG (WVG)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

ORDER TO COMPEL PHYSICAL

ACCESS TO LAW LIBRARY

[DOC. NO. 84]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Order to Compel

Physical Access to the Law Library. (Doc. No. 84.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s

Motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Order to Compel

Physical Access to the Law Library. (Doc. No. 84.) Plaintiff complains that he is currently

housed in a reception center that is “not in compliance with the access to the law library.” 

Id. at 1. In support of his Ex Parte Application, Plaintiff simply states that he does not have

the California Civil Jury Instructions, and he has extreme difficulty obtaining copies of his

motions for Defendants. Id. On March 11, 2013, Defendants filed a Statement of NonOpposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. (Doc. No. 89.)

1 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 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

While housed at George Bailey Detention Facility, Plaintiff filed two motions noting

that he did not have access to a law library or legal materials. (Doc. Nos. 19, 34.) On

February 17, 2012, Plaintiff requested that the Court provide access to a law library with

federal cases, rules, and citations. (Doc. No. 19 at 2.) In an Order issued on February 27,

2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s request for access to the law library, noting that the San

Diego County Sheriff’s Department is not a party to this case and the Court cannot compel

the Sheriff to provide law library access. (Doc. No. 22 at 2.) 

On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed another Motion with the Court, noting that he had no

library access other than the Legal Research Associates (“LRA”) program, which only

assisted inmates with research related to criminal law and conditions of confinement. (Doc.

No. 34 at 3.) On May 22, 2012, this Court ordered Defendants to provide briefing about the

legal assistance that Plaintiff had access to through the LRA program, as he was not involved

in criminal proceedings or challenging the conditions of his confinement. (Doc. No. 43 at

2.) In response, Defense counsel stated in a Declaration that, “[c]ircumstances show that

access for an inmate housed in a San Diego County jail is limited,” but that it was, “likely

that [Plaintiff] will be sentenced [to] state prison.” (Doc. No. 48 at 2.)

On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, informing the

Court that he had relocated to Chino Institute for Men. (Doc. No. 60.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The United States Supreme Court held in Bounds v. Smith, “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 trained in the law.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.

817, 828 (1977). The Bounds Court also stated, “As this Court has constantly emphasized,

habeas corpus and civil rights actions are of fundamental importance...in our constitutional

scheme because they directly protect our most valued rights.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 827.

In Bounds, the Court articulated that the “main concern” regarding the right of access

to the courts was “protecting the ability of an inmate to prepare a petition or complaint.” 

2 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 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

Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828 n. 17. The Ninth Circuit reinforced that reasoning in Cornett v.

Donovan when it stated that, “the constitutional right of access requires a state to provide a

law library or legal assistance only during the pleading stage of a habeas or civil rights

action.” Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In Lewis v. Casey, the United States Supreme Court determined that a prisoner

claiming that a prison law library is inadequate, or that official action somehow blocked his

access to the court, must allege “actual injury.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996). 

The Lewis Court noted that Bounds did not establish a right to a law library or legal

assistance, but rather, Bounds acknowledged the right of access to the courts. Id. at 350. 

The Lewis Court stated, “[b]ecause Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to

a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by

establishing that his prison’s law library or legal assistant program is subpar in some

theoretical sense.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. 

III. DISCUSSION AND RULING

 While Plaintiff claims that he needs physical access to the law library, it is unclear to

what extent, if any, access has been limited because the allegations in Plaintiff’s instant

Motion are extremely vague. (Doc. No. 84 at 1-2.) It is not clear from Plaintiff’s Motion

whether he has no access to the law library, limited access, or he does have access but is

without a copy of the California Civil Jury Instructions and the ability to photocopy his

motions for Defendants. 

Plaintiff has gained access to the Court by successfully filing his Complaint against

Defendants and has actively prosecuted his case. Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff has

filed numerous motions and ex parte applications, including a Pitchess Motion, a Motion for

Investigative and Expert Funds, Motions to Appoint Counsel, and Motions to Compel

Discovery. (Doc. Nos. 14, 21, 23, 31, 34, 68.) As recently as February 13, 2013, Plaintiff

filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No.

78.) In the Response, Plaintiff included a Table of Authorities, listing cases and citations. 

Id. at 5. As the Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, United States District Judge, recently noted,

3 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 3 of 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

“Plaintiff’s record of active motion practice before retaining counsel demonstrates his

capacity to prosecute the case independently.” (Doc. No. 73 at 4.) 

Despite Defendants’ non-objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court cannot grant

Plaintiff’s request, as the Chino Institute for Men is not a party to this case. Thus, the Court

does not have jurisdiction to compel the Institute to do, or refrain from doing, what Plaintiff

seeks. As this Court has previously explained in this case, Defendants are city police officers

and a city police agency, none of whom have any say over Plaintiff’s access to a law library

while in the custody of the Chino Institute for Men. (Doc. No. 22 at 2.)

If Plaintiff believes that he is not being provided with law library access in accordance

with the law, he is free to pursue his rights in a separate action. However, it does appear that

Plaintiff’s main concern, as set forth in the instant Motion, is that he is unable to photocopy

his motions for Defendants. The Court therefore will relieve Plaintiff of the burden of

making photocopies of documents that he mails to the Court to be filed. Plaintiff need only

to send a copy of any motions to the Court for filing, and Defendants can retrieve a copy

from the electronic docket. However, for all documents that are not to be filed, Plaintiff is

still required to send the documents directly to Defendants, as they will not be able to

retrieve unfiled documents from the docket. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Order to Compel

Physical Access to the Law Library is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2013

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

4 11CV2540

Case 3:11-cv-02540-IEG-WVG Document 92 Filed 03/19/13 Page 4 of 4