Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01050-12/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

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. MINA BESHARA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(Doc. No. 51)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s untitled pleading wherein, he requests a ruling on 

the amended complaint, to conduct discovery, access to a typewriter, and access to electronic case 

filing. (Doc. No. 51). The Court construes the untitled pleading as a motion seeking 

miscellaneous relief. Plaintiff Jeffrey Walker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 

this action while he was a civil detainee by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C § 

1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 26, 

“FAC”). For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned grants in part and denies the various 

requests. 

1. Ruling on Amended Complaint

District courts possess inherent authority not governed “by rule or statute, but by control 

necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 52 Filed 03/31/23 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

expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (citations omitted). 

And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, it has “one of 

the heaviest caseloads in the nation” and operates under a declared judicial emergency due to 

unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. See

Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 

California. This order effectively grants Plaintiff’s motion to the extent the Court acknowledges 

Plaintiff’s FAC is pending and requires screening. 

2. Request for Discovery

Plaintiff requests “the right to conduct discovery in order to amend to add or correct any 

names, and to gather evidence to support claims.” (Doc. No. 51 at 1). In the interest of judicial

economy, the Court typically does not order discovery until the operative complaint has been

screened and any Defendants have answered the complaint. See Hernandez v. Williams, No. 

2:17-cv-0583 MCE AC P, 2019 WL 5960089 (S.D. Cal. April 27, 2022). Because screening of 

Plaintiff’s FAC remains pending, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for discovery is 

premature. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for discovery is denied without prejudice.

3. Access to a Typewriter

Plaintiff requests access to a typewriter based on his hand injury, which requires his use of 

a brace. (Doc. No. 51 at 1). Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), limited in 

part on other grounds by Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. However, there is no Constitutional right to use 

a typewriter. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir.1985). 

Further, Plaintiff’s request for a typewriter is procedurally deficient because Plaintiff does not 

“state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). 

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for access to a typewriter is denied. 

4. Access to Electronic Filing 

Last, Plaintiff requests access to the court’s electronic case filing. (Doc. No. 51 at 2). The 

Court utilizes a case management electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) which requires 

attorneys to adhere to electronic procedures in the Court’s Local Rules to file documents 

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 52 Filed 03/31/23 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

electronically. L.R. 133(a). Pro se parties are specifically exempted, and indeed prohibited, from 

utilizing electronic filing unless granted permission from the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. 

L.R. 133(b)(2); L.R. 183(c). Any requests from an exempted party to utilize electronic filing 

“shall be submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143.” L.R. 133(b)(3). If a stipulation 

cannot be obtained, the moving party shall include in his request “an explanation of the reasons 

for the exception.” Id. 

While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff cannot obtain a stipulation since no Defendant has 

been served, he does not include a sufficient explanation as to why he should be exempted from 

the Court’s Local Rules. Plaintiff offers one conclusory sentence that he has a record of 

documents and filings being destroyed but does not elaborate any further. Such conclusory 

statement without further explanation is insufficient. Indeed, the docket reflects the Court has 

received multiple filings from Plaintiff and it does not appear Plaintiff is hampered in his ability 

to litigate this case because he does not have access to the Court’s electronic case filing.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s construed motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED to the limited extent 

the Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s FAC requires screening. In all other respects, the 

motion is DENIED.

Dated: March 30, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK Document 52 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 3