(PC) Hardy v. Morris ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTIN HARDY, No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. DAVIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to this court 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this court is plaintiff’s motion to compel North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) to 21 grant him physical access to its law library. (See ECF No. 133). For the reasons stated below, 22 the court shall deny plaintiff’s motion. 23 I. RELEVANT FACTS 24 On December 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to compel North Kern State Prison to 25 grant him physical access to its law library. (See ECF No. 133). In support of the motion, 26 plaintiff states that he needs to conduct research in order to file objections to the court’s time- 27 sensitive order issued November 23, 2020, which denied him injunctive relief. (See ECF Nos. 28 131, 133). 1 Plaintiff's motion states that he has received notice from NKSP that because of the 2 | COVID-19 pandemic, the law library is closed to physical access. (See ECF No. 133 at 2). 3 | Plaintiff has filed administrative appeals related to this decision. (See generally id. at 2-4). 4 | Ultimately, plaintiff appears to be requesting that this court override NKSP’s decision to limit 5 | physical access to its library. In support of the motion, plaintiff states that at one point at the 6 || second level of prison officials’ administrative review of this issue, prisoners with court-imposed 7 | deadlines were granted physical access to the law library. (See id. at 2). He further argues that 8 | NKSP’s decision to deny him physical access violates prison regulations and policy as well as 9 | federal law. (See id. at 2-3). 10 | IL DISCUSSION 11 The court will deny plaintiff's motion. First, the court notes that plaintiff has not said that 12 | he has been denied access to the law library in its entirety; he only states that he has been denied 13 | physical access to it. Consequently, the court presumes that plaintiff has not been denied access 14 | to all the prison’s legal materials. Thus, plaintiff's constitutional right to court access has not 15 | been completely effaced, and any marginal violation of that right is not actionable here. Indeed, 16 | plaintiffs right to access to the courts “does not require the elimination of all economic, 17 | intellectual, and technological barriers to litigation.” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 18 | (9th Cir. 1990). Furthermore, a state’s failure to enforce its own procedures or regulations is not 19 | grounds for a federal claim, either. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 700 (1976). 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to require North Kern 21 | State Prison to grant him physical access to its prison law library (ECF No. 133) is DENIED. 22 | Dated: January 4, 2021 24 5 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 || DLB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS /hard0726.mtc.den 28