(PC) Arrant v. Santoro ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN R. ARRANT, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01253-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO 13 v. ) COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL BY MAIL ONLY 14 KELLY SANTORO, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 44) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Melvin R. Arrant is proceeding pro se and in forma pauepris in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Defendant’s counsel 21 to communicate with him by mail only. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff contends that communicating with 22 defense counsel by telephone in front of officers violates his right to privacy and triggers his post 23 traumatic stress disorder. (Id.) 24 Plaintiff is informed that the attorney-client privilege is not necessarily implicated in his 25 communications with attorneys who do not represent him. See, e.g, Giba v. Cook, 232 F.Supp.2d 26 1171, 1187 (D. Or. 2002). Nor does Plaintiff's right of self-representation transform his legal 27 materials into confidential attorney work product or provide him routine access to confidential 28 telephone calls. In addition to the requirement that Plaintiff establish a resulting injury, a prisoner's 1 || right of access to the courts must be balanced with a prison's “penological interest in curtailing the 2 || prisoner's privacy rights. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984) Gnmates have no 3 || expectation of privacy in their living quarters); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979) (prisoner's 4 || privacy rights curtailed by prison's security interests).” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1133 (9th 5 || Cir.2001). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate he has been denied access to the court by any telephone 6 ||communication with defense. The mere fact that Plaintiff prefers to communicate with defense 7 || counsel by mail does not warrant a court order mandating communication in such form. Accordingly 8 || Plaintiff's request to communication with defense counsel by telephone only is denied. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. A (Se _ 11 |! Dated: _ November 19, 2021 OF 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28