Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02360/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02360-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE YOUNG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-2360 LKK GGH P

vs.

R. MANDEVILLE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. By Order filed on August 28, 2006, defendants motion to dismiss was granted and

plaintiff given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of time

to file his amended complaint; see Orders, filed on September 29, 2006 and on October 31, 2006. 

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint, defendants Mandeville, Mayfield, Gasaway, Chastain and

newly named defendant Chugg have answered and a discovery order is being concurrently filed.

However, although not plainly set forth in the caption at the outset of the amended

complaint, plaintiff apparently seeks to name two additional defendants (see p. 5 of amended

complaint) within the form portion of the amended allegations, for which he does not set forth

colorable claims. Plaintiff lists as final additional defendants Senior Librarian D. McCarger (or

McCargar) and D. Hoffman. However, plaintiff does not reference either name within the

Case 2:01-cv-02360-LKK -KJN Document 80 Filed 12/08/06 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

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 1

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981)). 

2

amended complaint. To the extent that he seeks to allege a violation of his right of access to the

courts by these defendants, his vague allegations regarding another matter for which he was

unable to obtain certain photocopies of documents does not do so. Within the allegations, he

states that in another matter, evidently a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied, the

court informed plaintiff that Congress had not authorized funds for copying services sought by

plaintiff. The Senior Librarian (unnamed within the allegations), rather than providing the

supplies and copying services plaintiff sought evidently advised plaintiff to file originals instead. 

Amended Complaint, pp. 11-12. Review of exhibits attached to a declaration filed on the same

day as plaintiff’s first amended complaint reveals that D. Hoffman is (or was) Supervisor of

Academic Instruction, and in noting that plaintiff had been granted the PLU status he sought,

stated that plaintiff was not dependent on the prison’s law library copying services but that his

filing could be mailed directly to the court without copies.

Plaintiff does not allege the requisite actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

351-53, 355, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996). Before a First Amendment claim of a denial of a right of

access to the courts can go forward, an inmate must “demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim

had been frustrated or was being impeded.” Id. Among the exhibits that plaintiff has submitted,

are appeal decisions indicating that the prison library has rejected copy requests for documents

that were submitted “piecemeal.” Moreover, the exhibits regarding the habeas petition that was

denied which denial plaintiff seeks to impute to the copy policies, or lack thereof, of defendants

McCarger and/or Hoffman, demonstrate that plaintiff’s petition was not dismissed or denied

based on any failure to submit documents, or copies, to the court. See Exhibits G and I. Within

the final report and recommendation of Case No. 99-4892 RSWL (EE), of which this court takes

judicial notice, recommending denying plaintiff, as petitioner, a writ of habeas corpus, the court 1

Case 2:01-cv-02360-LKK -KJN Document 80 Filed 12/08/06 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

3

noted that as to any “new evidence” plaintiff, as petitioner, discovered and/or submitted after

filing the petition, he had failed to exhaust such claims before the California Supreme Court. 

Exhibit I. On April 16, 2001, an order adopting the final report and recommendation was filed,

and judgment thereon entered. See Exhibit G, docket entries # 51 & # 52. In other words,

consideration or lack of consideration of such “new evidence” did not implicate the copying

procedures of the prison or the defendants plaintiff seeks to name with regard to these

allegations, nor is a deprivation of a constitutional right of access to the courts claim thereby set

forth. Plaintiff has not set forth allegations which demonstrate a violation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights by defendants McCarger and/or Hoffman and the court will recommend their

dismissal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant McCarger (or

McCargar) and Hoffman be dismissed from this action .

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 twenty

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

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: 12/8/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

youn2360.fr

Case 2:01-cv-02360-LKK -KJN Document 80 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 3