Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01563-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK WAYNE SPRINKLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1563 LKK PAN P

vs.

ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. On March 1, 2006, the magistrate judge in the

above-captioned case recommended that defendants Robinson and Pierce’s May 10, 2006 motion

for summary judgement be granted. The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations and as discussed below, the court declines to adopt the recommendation.

The magistrate judge found that a pro se habeas corpus petitioner is not required to

provide exhibits or other supporting documents with his initial petition and thus that defendants’

refusal to copy the exhibits did not cause “actual injury” to plaintiff’s constitutional right to

access the court. Findings and Recommendations filed on March 1, 2006 at 6-7. 

////

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 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

2

The court cannot agree with this conclusion at this time. First, it is not clear to the court

that the relevant question is whether the prisoner was required to provide the exhibits. Rather,

the appropriate question appears to be whether the failure to allow the plaintiff to provide

additional evidence in support of his habeas petition resulted in the state court denying the

petition on the grounds that petitioner “made no offer of proof by way of additional evidence” to

support his argument that the findings of the jury were unreasonable. It does not follow that

because the prisoner was not required to attach supporting documents that he did not have such a

right. This becomes significant in light of the finding by the Superior Court which denied the

habeas on the ground that no additional evidence was proffered. 

 Based on the evidence tendered, it appears that there remains a disputed fact that would

defeat summary judgment. The court may need to know what the contents of the exhibits were,

and if there was another opportunity given in the judicial proceedings to provide the documents

before finding that the failure to provide them with the petition for habeas corpus was not the

cause for the denial. 

For the reasons set forth above, the court DECLINES to adopt the magistrate judge’s

March 1, 2006 findings and recommendations and REMANDS the case to the magistrate judge

for further proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 30, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:02-cv-01563-JAM-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2