Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00034/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00034-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

19cv0034-GPC(RBB)

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 

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, Booking 

No. 18165284, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ARTURO LEO, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 19cv0034-GPC(RBB) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS AND 

THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TO 

GIVE HIM “PRO-PER STATUS” AT 

THE SAN DIEGO CENTRAL JAIL 

[ECF NO. 70] 

 

On April 29, 2020 nunc pro tunc April 23, 2020, Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke 

filed a motion for an order directing Defendants and the San Diego County Sheriff’s 

Department to give him “Pro-Per Status” at the San Diego Central Jail, where he is 

currently incarcerated [ECF No. 70]. Plaintiff states that he needs this status in order to 

gain access to the jail’s law library. 

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 74 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv0034-GPC(RBB)

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

Prison officials must provide inmates with meaningful access to the courts. 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977). While the right of access to the courts 

requires that inmates be given the opportunity to attack their sentences or conditions of 

confinement, the right does not guarantee a prisoner the ability to “litigate effectively 

once in court.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996). Prison officials are not 

required to provide unlimited access to prison law libraries, but rather may regulate the 

use of the library to ensure the security of the facility. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of 

Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985). “Prison officials of necessity must 

regulate the time, manner, and place in which library facilities are used.” Id. 

Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief. Moreover, the Court lacks the 

jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Plaintiff seeks an order directing “Defendants 

and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department” to provide him the “Pro-Per Status” that 

he claims is necessary to access the prison law library. The only defendant that has 

currently appeared in the case is Dr. Arturo Leon,1

 and there is no indication that he has 

any influence over the policies and practices of the San Diego Central Jail library. As the 

District Judge previously indicated, (see Apr. 15, 2020 Order 13 n.8, ECF No. 68), 

Plaintiff’s request for law library access should be directed to the County of San Diego, 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

                                               

1

 Following Judge Curiel’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

File Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 53] and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 68], the 

only remaining defendants are Arturo Leon, Jon Montgomery, Dane Olsen, and the County of San 

Diego. Only Defendant Leon has filed an Answer (see ECF No. 73). The other three defendants have 

not yet appeared in this case. 

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 74 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv0034-GPC(RBB)

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

which operates the San Diego Central Jail, not to this Court. 

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2020 

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 74 Filed 05/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3