Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF S. HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. KEY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-02-6529 REC LJO P

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ORDER REQUIRING

CLERK’S OFFICE TO GLUE ENVELOPES,

FOR RE-SERVICE OF ENCLOSURES, FOR

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO

ANSWER COMPLAINT, AND FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 45)

Plaintiff Jeff S. Harnden (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 28, 2005, the court issued an order finding that service

of plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint is appropriate and forwarding plaintiff summonses and USM285 forms to fill out and return to the court. (Doc. 44.) On August 5, 2005, plaintiff filed an

objection to the order. (Doc. 45.) 

First, plaintiff contends that another inmate signed for and received plaintiff’s legal mail.

Plaintiff asserts that the Clerk’s Office fails to glue the envelopes shut and instead tapes them, which

allows prison officials to open and then reseal his mail. Plaintiff requests that the Clerk’s Office be

ordered to glue envelopes shut and that the enclosures be re-served so that he may determine what

was taken.

The order was served on plaintiff at his address of record. Thus, the issue of the delivery of

plaintiff’s mail to another inmate is between plaintiff and prison staff. The court has no ability to

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 46 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 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

2

prevent such occurrences. 

With respect to the sealing of envelopes, the court declines to direct the Clerk’s Office to seal

envelopes in a particular manner. Correspondence between an attorney and a client is entitled to

special protection under the attorney-client privilege. However, “[m]ail from the courts, as

contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094

(9th Cir. 1996). “All correspondence from a court to a litigant is a public document, which prison

personnel could if they want inspect in the court’s files.” Id. at 1094 (citing to Martin v. Brewer, 830

F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir. 1987)). Thus, plaintiff does not have a right to avoid inspection of his legal

mail by mail room staff.

Plaintiff’s objections establish that he received the court’s two page order. (Doc. 45, 2:11.)

Page two of the order specifically sets forth the documents the Clerk’s Office was to enclose with

the order. The language in the order allows plaintiff to compare what enclosures he actually received

with what enclosures he should have received. For this reason, plaintiff’s assertion that he needs all

of the enclosures re-served in order to determine what is missing is unpersuasive and shall be denied

at this juncture. 

Second, plaintiff objects because the court did not order defendantsto answer. This objection

is wholly without merit. Defendants are not required to respond until they have either waived service

or been served with process, neither of which has occurred yet. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Further, once

defendants are served, they may file either an answer or a dispositive motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).

There is no requirement that defendants’ first response to the complaint be an answer. Id. Thus, the

court did not err by failing to order defendants to answer in the order issued on July 28, 2005, and

plaintiff’s request for an order requiring them to answer shall be denied.

Third, plaintiff requests a continuance. Plaintiff’s bare request for an extension of time is

insufficient. Plaintiff must identify what he is seeking the extension of time for. Because plaintiff

has not done so, his request must be denied.

Accordingly, by this order, plaintiff’s objections have been addressed. Plaintiff’s request for

an order requiring the Clerk’s Office to glue envelopes is DENIED, plaintiff’s request for re-service

of the enclosures in the July 28 order is DENIED, plaintiff’s request for an order requiring

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 46 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 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

3

defendants to answer is DENIED, and plaintiff’s request for a continuance is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 46 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 3