Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04876/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04876-5/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS ARMANDO ORTEGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK RITCHIE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04876-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

REQUEST TO REINSTATE INDIGENT 

PRO-PER PRIVILEGES

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Plaintiff, an insanity acquittee incarcerated at Napa State Hospital and proceeding pro se, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations at the 

Santa Clara County Jail (“SCCJ”), where he was previously incarcerated. He has named as 

defendants SCCJ doctors and correctional officials. Docket No. 10 at 2–3 and 8–9. Now pending 

before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court order Napa State Hospital to 

reinstate Plaintiff’s pro per privileges. Docket No. 43. For the reasons set forth below, this 

motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff alleges that he was granted pro per privileges by the Napa State Hospital 

Litigation Coordinator on February 13, 2014, which entitled him to free postage envelopes and 

free photocopies. Docket No. 43 at 2 and 3. He further alleges that these privileges were stopped 

on July 7, 2016 without written notice or explanation. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states that he relies on the 

pro per privileges to prosecute the instant case, but does not specify how he has suffered actual 

injury from the loss of the pro per privileges.

The Court DENIES IN PART this motion. The Court cannot order the specific relief 

sought by Plaintiff because Napa State Hospital is not a party to this action. If Plaintiff so wishes, 

he may file a separate action against Napa State Hospital for interference with access to the courts. 

Case 4:15-cv-04876-HSG Document 45 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

However, the Court will also GRANT IN PART this motion. The Court certifies that Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro per in federal civil rights proceedings, and requests that officials at the Napa 

County Jail provide Plaintiff with reasonable access to the tools needed to challenge the conditions 

of his confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352, 355 (1996) (constitutional right of access 

to the courts requires that prisons provide inmates with the “tools . . . that the inmates need in 

order . . . to challenge the conditions of their confinement”) (refusing to specify what tools should 

be provided and encouraging “‘local experimentation’ in various methods of assuring access to the 

courts”).1 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

This order terminates Docket No. 43.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

“There is no established minimum requirement that a state must meet in order to provide 

indigent inmates with adequate access to the courts.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 

1987) overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). For 

example, the denial of free photocopying does not, by itself, amount to a denial of access to the 

courts. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991). Although an inmate must be 

provided with postage stamps at state expense to mail legal documents, a state may adopt 

reasonable postage stamp regulations. King, 914 F.2d at 568.

10/19/2016

Case 4:15-cv-04876-HSG Document 45 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 2