Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00888/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00888-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Gerald Eldridge, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00888-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Joseph Gerald Eldridge has filed an objection to an order entered by 

Magistrate Judge Metcalf on March 17, 2014 (Doc. 75) denying without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s motion to return legal files or for a stay. Doc. 82. Plaintiff has also filed an 

objection to an order entered by Judge Metcalf on March 19, 2014 (Doc. 76) denying 

without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to compel production. Doc. 82. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court will not reconsider Judge Metcalf’s orders. 

I. Legal Standard. 

 “A district judge may reconsider a magistrate’s order in a pretrial matter if that 

order is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 

1041 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); see Grimes v. City & County of 

S.F., 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The district court shall defer to the magistrate’s 

orders unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)). 

Case 2:13-cv-00888-DLR-ESW Document 95 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

II. Analysis. 

 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that either of Judge Metcalf’s orders was erroneous 

or contrary to law. As to Plaintiff’s motion to return legal files or for a stay, Plaintiff 

repeats his claims that he was denied access to legal supplies. Doc. 82 at 2. Prisoners 

have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 

(1977). The right of access to the courts, however, is only a right to bring petitions or 

complaints to the federal court and not a right to discover such claims or even to litigate 

them effectively once filed with a court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996); 

see also Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). To maintain an access-tothe-courts claim, an inmate must submit evidence showing an “actual injury” resulting 

from the defendant’s actions. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. With respect to an existing 

case, the actual injury must be “actual prejudice . . . such as the inability to meet a filing 

deadline or to present a claim.” Id. at 348-49. 

 Although Plaintiff alleges that his access to court has been hindered and that 

“Defendants did two of the conference and then on the three Telephone conference do to 

Plaintiff not having access to legal documents or court orders [sic throughout]” (Doc. 82 

at 1-2), Plaintiff has presented no evidence that his alleged lack of access to legal supplies 

resulted in an actual injury. 

 As to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Plaintiff states that he does not understand the 

portion of Judge Metcalf’s order instructing him that future motions “should be supported 

by references to the specific discovery requests served, and should summarize the 

responses or objections, and should demonstrate why the responses are inadequate and/or 

why the objections should be overruled.” Doc. 76 at 1. That Plaintiff did not understand 

is not a ground for the Court to reconsider Judge Metcalf’s order. For the sake of clarity, 

in any renewed motion to compel, Plaintiff must: (1) refer to a specific discovery request 

which he has served on Defendants; (2) inform Judge Metcalf whether Plaintiff then 

received any response or objection to his discovery request from Defendants; and (3) 

explain to Judge Metcalf why any responses or objections submitted by Defendants were 

Case 2:13-cv-00888-DLR-ESW Document 95 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

either inadequate or should be overruled. Plaintiff also argues that he was not aware of 

all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 83 at 2. This is not grounds for 

reconsidering Judge Metcalf’s order. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern 

other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“pro se

litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with 

attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in 

which he litigates.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 82, 83) are denied. 

 Dated this 8th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00888-DLR-ESW Document 95 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 3