(PC) Walker v. Beshara ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY E. WALKER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01050-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 14 DR. MINA BESHARA, ET AL., (Doc. No. 51) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s untitled pleading wherein, he requests a ruling on 18 the amended complaint, to conduct discovery, access to a typewriter, and access to electronic case 19 filing. (Doc. No. 51). The Court construes the untitled pleading as a motion seeking 20 miscellaneous relief. Plaintiff Jeffrey Walker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 21 this action while he was a civil detainee by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C § 22 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 26, 23 “FAC”). For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned grants in part and denies the various 24 requests. 25 1. Ruling on Amended Complaint 26 District courts possess inherent authority not governed “by rule or statute, but by control 27 necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 28 1 expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (citations omitted). 2 And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, it has “one of 3 the heaviest caseloads in the nation” and operates under a declared judicial emergency due to 4 unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. See 5 Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 6 California. This order effectively grants Plaintiff’s motion to the extent the Court acknowledges 7 Plaintiff’s FAC is pending and requires screening. 8 2. Request for Discovery 9 Plaintiff requests “the right to conduct discovery in order to amend to add or correct any 10 names, and to gather evidence to support claims.” (Doc. No. 51 at 1). In the interest of judicial 11 economy, the Court typically does not order discovery until the operative complaint has been 12 screened and any Defendants have answered the complaint. See Hernandez v. Williams, No. 13 2:17-cv-0583 MCE AC P, 2019 WL 5960089 (S.D. Cal. April 27, 2022). Because screening of 14 Plaintiff’s FAC remains pending, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for discovery is 15 premature. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for discovery is denied without prejudice. 16 3. Access to a Typewriter 17 Plaintiff requests access to a typewriter based on his hand injury, which requires his use of 18 a brace. (Doc. No. 51 at 1). Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See 19 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), limited in 20 part on other grounds by Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. However, there is no Constitutional right to use 21 a typewriter. Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir.1985). 22 Further, Plaintiff’s request for a typewriter is procedurally deficient because Plaintiff does not 23 “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B). 24 Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for access to a typewriter is denied. 25 4. Access to Electronic Filing 26 Last, Plaintiff requests access to the court’s electronic case filing. (Doc. No. 51 at 2). The 27 Court utilizes a case management electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) which requires 28 attorneys to adhere to electronic procedures in the Court’s Local Rules to file documents 1 | electronically. L.R. 133(a). Pro se parties are specifically exempted, and indeed prohibited, from 2 | utilizing electronic filing unless granted permission from the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. 3 | L.R. 133(b)(2); L.R. 183(c). Any requests from an exempted party to utilize electronic filing 4 | “shall be submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143.” L.R. 133(b)(3). Ifa stipulation 5 | cannot be obtained, the moving party shall include in his request “an explanation of the reasons 6 | for the exception.” Id. 7 While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff cannot obtain a stipulation since no Defendant has 8 | been served, he does not include a sufficient explanation as to why he should be exempted from 9 | the Court’s Local Rules. Plaintiff offers one conclusory sentence that he has a record of 10 | documents and filings being destroyed but does not elaborate any further. Such conclusory 11 statement without further explanation is insufficient. Indeed, the docket reflects the Court has 12 || received multiple filings from Plaintiff and it does not appear Plaintiff is hampered in his ability 13 | to litigate this case because he does not have access to the Court’s electronic case filing. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 Plaintiff's construed motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED to the limited extent 16 the Court acknowledges Plaintiff's FAC requires screening. In all other respects, the 17 motion is DENIED. 18 | Dated: _ March 30, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 20 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28