Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407-14/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

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE, IV,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05407-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 100)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 82)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS THE

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A SECOND

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Steven Joseph Noble (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 Rule 72-302.

On March 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 103 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 4
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

days. On April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

In the objections, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’

denial of law library access deprived him of access to the court. 

Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the

frustration or hindrance of "a litigating opportunity yet to be

gained" (forward-looking access claim) or from the loss of a

meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking

claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15 (2002). 

Plaintiff must show he suffered an "actual injury" by being shut

out of court. Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415; Phillips v. Hust, 477

F.3d 1070, 1076 (9 Cir. 2007). Plaintiff must also show the th

Defendants proximately caused the alleged violation of

Plaintiff's rights, "[t]he touchstone ... [for which] is

foreseeability." Phillips, 477 at 1077. Here, as explained by

the Magistrate Judge, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed

to submit evidence demonstrating that he suffered an actual

injury, which means the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot

now be tried. Christopher, 536 U.S. at 412-15. Plaintiff has

in fact submitted state appeals, state habeas petitions, and

federal petitions that were denied and/or are being reviewed on

the merits. While one of Plaintiff's state petitions was denied

on procedural grounds, it was denied for a host of procedural

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 103 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 4
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

violations, only one of which was unexplained delay in filing the

petition. 

The court is aware of the recent Ninth Circuit case

addressing an inmate's right to meaningful access to the courts,

and finds that the case is distinguishable. See Phillips v. Hust,

477 F.3d 1070 (9 Cir. 2007). In Hust, the Ninth Circuit found th

that the prison librarian had prevented Phillips from timely

filing his petition for certiorari in the United State Supreme

Court by refusing to allow him to use the prison's binding

machine, resulting in the Supreme Court rejecting the petition as

untimely. The Ninth Circuit held that the prison librarian's

actions constituted actual injury that had caused "actual

prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation."

Unlike Hust, there is not a clear cause-and-effect between 

Defendants' actions and the loss of opportunity. Plaintiff did

present his claims and it is not clear they were denied solely

because they were untimely. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 26, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December

6, 2006, is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s access

to courts, mail interference and supervisory liability

claims against Defendants, and DENIED without prejudice

regarding the Eighth Amendment exercise claim against

Defendants Cuevas and Adams; and,

3. Defendants are GRANTED the opportunity to file a second

Motion for Summary Judgment within thirty (30) days

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 103 Filed 05/18/07 Page 3 of 4
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

from the date of service of this order should they

choose to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 103 Filed 05/18/07 Page 4 of 4