Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05958/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05958-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL L. GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT SILLEN, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05958 SBA (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE AMENDMENT TO

COMPLAINT AND ADDRESSING HIS

OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

(Docket nos. 24, 29, 34)

The instant case was commenced by Plaintiff Darryl L. Goldstein, who is incarcerated at the

San Mateo County Jail. Before the Court is Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file

his amendment to the complaint. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's request to grant inmate Ryan

Christopher Hatcher next friend status to prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff, his request for

an Order granting him "more broader" access to the law library, and his discovery requests.

I. Second Request for Extension of Time to File Amendment to the Complaint

Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file his amendment to the complaint is

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amendment to the complaint no later than May 21, 2010, as

directed below. 

II. Next Friend Request

Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for the Court to Ackowledge [sic]

Plaintiff's Assistant in this Case," which the Court construes as a request for to grant inmate Ryan

Christopher Hatcher next friend status to prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) permits a suit by a next friend for an infant or

incompetent person. In order to proceed as next friend, inmate Hatcher must show that Plaintiff --

the real party in interest -- "is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of

access to court, or similar disability." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990). In

addition, the next friend must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf

he seeks to litigate, and he must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. Id.

Case 4:07-cv-05958-SBA Document 55 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The person seeking next friend status holds the burden of establishing "the propriety of his status

and thereby justifying the jurisdiction of the court." Id.

There is no evidence that inmate Hatcher has Plaintiff's best interests in mind, or that inmate

Hatcher has a "significant relationship" with Plaintiff. While inmate Hatcher claims Plaintiff "has an

number of medical problems affect[ing[ his daily activities," there is no evidence that Plaintiff is

mentally incompetent or otherwise incapable of pursuing his own action. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff's next friend request (docket no. 24).

III. Law Library Access

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion Informing the Court of His Present Access to the

Court and Request for a More Broader Request to the San Mateo County Jail Staff," which shall be

construed as a request for an order directing jail officials to allow him access to the law library for

"at least two (2) hour . . . sessions per week" and to provide him with "pro per/pro se legal supplies

and legal postage."

 In Bounds v. Smith, the Supreme Court held "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." 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Subsequently, the Supreme Court

clarified that Bounds did not establish a substantive right to law library access, but rather signaled

that in order for prisoners' right of access to the courts to be meaningful, they must be given

adequate resources to prepare. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). The Court

explained:

Because 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 assistance program is subpar in some theoretical

sense. That would be the precise analog of the healthy inmate claiming constitutional

violation because of the inadequacy of the prison infirmary. Insofar as the right

vindicated by Bounds is concerned, "meaningful access to the courts is the

touchstone," and the inmate therefore must go one step further and demonstrate that

the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his

efforts to pursue a legal claim. He might show, for example, that a complaint he

prepared was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which,

because of deficiencies in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have

known. Or that he had suffered arguably actionable harm that he wished to bring

before the courts, but was so stymied by inadequacies of the law library that he was

unable even to file a complaint.

Case 4:07-cv-05958-SBA Document 55 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Id. at 351.

In the instant case, Plaintiff has not claimed any actual harm caused by his alleged lack of

access to the jail's law library or to any of the other items he listed. Furthermore, as mentioned

above, the Court has granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file his amendment to the complaint. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for an order directing jail officials at San Mateo County Jail to

provide him with "more broader" law library access and with the items listed above (docket no. 29)

is DENIED at this time. 

IV. Discovery Requests

Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for Court Orders In Order for

Plaintiff to Comply With Order Dated March 8, 2010," in which he seeks the production of

documents which he maintains are relevant to the prosecution of his claims. The scope of discovery

is limited to matters "relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . . Relevant information need

not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be further limited by court order

if "(1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some

other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking

discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2). 

Only when the parties have a discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves

should they ask the Court to intervene in the discovery process. The Court does not have time or

resources to oversee all discovery and therefore requires that the parties present to it only their very

specific disagreements. To promote this goal of addressing only very specific disagreements, federal

and local discovery rules require the parties to meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements

before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1. 

Because Plaintiff is incarcerated he is not required to meet and confer with Defendants in person. 

Rather, if his discovery requests are denied and he intends to seek a motion to compel he need only

Case 4:07-cv-05958-SBA Document 55 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

send a letter to Defendants to that effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him the

sought-after information.

Here, Plaintiff did not provide Defendants with one last opportunity to address each

discovery request upon which he now requests the Court to produce. Moreover, it may be that

Plaintiff will obtain some sought-after discovery if Defendants file a motion for summary judgment

and accompanying exhibits, with which Defendants shall also serve Plaintiff. For these reasons,

Plaintiff's discovery requests are DENIED as premature. In the interests of justice, the Court sets a

discovery cut-off date of thirty (30) days from the date Plaintiff is served with Defendants'

dispositive motion. If Plaintiff attempts to meet and confer with Defendants regarding requests for

the production of documents and is not satisfied with the result he may file a renewed discovery

motion. But in no event shall he file such a motion until after he has reviewed Defendants'

dispositive motion.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file his amendment to the

complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amendment to the complaint no later than May 21,

2010. He must clearly label the document an "Amendment to the Complaint," and write in the case

number for this action, Case No. C 07-5958 SBA (PR). The failure to do so by the May 21, 2010

deadline will result in the dismissal of his supervisory liability claims against Defendants Kelso,

Ayers, Petrikas, Saylor, Kannon and Pootell without prejudice.

2. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for the Court to

Ackowledge [sic] Plaintiff's Assistant in this Case" (docket no. 24), which has been construed as a

request for to grant inmate Hatcher next friend status to prosecute this action on behalf of Plaintiff.

3. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion, entitled "Motion Informing the Court of His

Present Access to the Court and Request for a More Broader Request to the San Mateo County Jail

Staff" (docket no. 29), which has been construed as a request for an order directing jail officials at

San Mateo County Jail to provide him with "more broader" law library access and with the items

listed above. 

Case 4:07-cv-05958-SBA Document 55 Filed 05/05/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Goldstein5958.2ndEOT-AC&pendMOTS.wpd 5

4. The Court DENIES as premature Plaintiff's motion entitled, "Plaintiff's Request for

Court Orders In Order for Plaintiff to Comply With Order Dated March 8, 2010" (docket no. 34), in

which he seeks the production of documents which he maintains are relevant to the prosecution of

his claims. 

5. This Order terminates Docket nos. 24, 29 and 34.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/3/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05958-SBA Document 55 Filed 05/05/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Goldstein5958.2ndEOT-AC&pendMOTS.wpd 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL L. GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT SILLEN FEDERAL RECEIUCER et

al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-05958 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 5, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Darryl Lee Goldstein 100002

San Mateo County Jail

300 Bradford Street

Redwood City, CA 94063

Dated: May 5, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-05958-SBA Document 55 Filed 05/05/10 Page 6 of 6