(PC) Perry v. United States Penitentiary Atwater ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARETH PERRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00279-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 14 UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, ATWATER, (Doc. 16) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Gareth Perry is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 19 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff moves the Court to mark all mail it sends to Plaintiff as 20 “private” or, in the alternative, issue an order that prison staff be required to open mail from the 21 Court in front of Plaintiff. (See Doc. 16 at 1-2.) 22 As explained in the Court’s first screening order (Doc. 14), court records are generally 23 open to the public, with the exception of documents filed under seal or pursuant to a protective 24 order. See, e.g., Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 25 (9th Cir. 2002). “The public” includes prison staff. In addition, as also explained in the screening 26 order, prison officials may generally inspect mail from the courts outside of inmates’ presence. 27 See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). “Mail from the courts, as 1 Amendment does not prohibit opening such mail outside the recipient’s presence.” Id. (internal 2 quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Sheila K. Oberto 6 Dated: January 11, 2021 /s/ . 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27