(PC) Walker v. Beshara ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY WALKER, Case No. 1:20-CV-1050-NONE-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE 13 v. (Doc. No. 25) 14 MINA BESHARA, ET. AL., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR HOSPITAL TO PROVIDE ENVELOPES 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 28) 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO PROVIDE THIS ORDER TO LITIGATION 17 COORDINATOR AT COALINGA STATE HOSPITAL 18 ORDER DIRECTING OFFICIAL AT 19 COALINGA TO CONFIRM WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS CIVILLY DETAINED OR A 20 PRISONER 21 22 23 24 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to direct officials at 25 Coalinga State Hospital to provide him with envelopes for mailing legal mail to the Court filed 26 June 9, 2021 (Doc. No. 28). Plaintiff claims an official is refusing to provide him with envelopes 27 for “urgent deadline mailing” in “retaliation” for him filing a lawsuit against staff friends. (Doc. 28 No. 28). The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals’ access to 1 the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). 2 Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected right of access to courts guaranteed by the Fourteenth 3 Amendment. Bounds, 430 U.S. at 821. Implicit within this right of access to courts is the right to 4 have access to adequate law libraries or legal assistance from trained individuals. Id. at 828 5 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Precedent “does not dictate a minimum number of hours or 6 any other requirement for satisfying the right of access” to them. Witkin v. Swarthout, 2013 WL 7 6054451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013). A limitation on an inmate’s access to copy machines is 8 “ordinary” and permissible as long as some access is allowed. Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 9 998 (9th Cir. 2009). Because there is no established minimum requirement for satisfying the 10 access requirement; “a reviewing court should focus on whether the individual plaintiff before it 11 has been denied meaningful access.” Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989) 12 (internal quotations omitted). Here, a review of the docket shows Plaintiff has not been denied 13 meaningful access to the court. Nor is Plaintiff under any current court-ordered deadlines as of 14 the date on this order. 15 Plaintiff represents to the Court that he is a patient at Coalinga State Hospital and as a 16 result appears to be civilly detained, as opposed to criminally confined. For clarification 17 purposes, the Court requests an official at Coalinga State Hospital to provide notice to the Court 18 within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Order confirming Plaintiff’s status: mainly whether 19 Plaintiff is civilly confined or whether he is criminally confined. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 1. Plaintiff’s construed motion for the undersigned to recuse herself (Doc. 25) is 22 DENIED. 23 2. Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court direct officials at Coalinga State Hospital to 24 provide him with envelopes for mailing legal mail (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED. 25 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this order to the litigation coordinator at 26 Coalinga State Hospital and confirm same on the docket. 27 4. Within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Order, an official from Coaling State 28 Hospital shall file a Notice advising the Court as to Plaintiff’s status, whether he is criminally 1 | confined or civilly detained at the institution. 2 3 Dated: _ August 20, 2021 ooo. Th. Bareh Hack 4 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28