Ambert v. Stafford

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENE AMBERT, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00996-RBM-DEB FL DOC #A50783, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Petitioner, 13 MOTION FOR COURT ORDER FOR vs. ACCESS TO INSTITUION (BRCF) LAW 14 LIBRARY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 15 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY [Doc. 45] 16 GENERAL M. GARLAND; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; 17 MARSHALL STEVEN C. 18 STAFFORD; and FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 19 Respondents. 20

21 22 On February 20, 2024, Petitioner/Plaintiff Gene Ambert (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion 23 for Court Order for Access to Institution (BRCF) Law Library (“Motion”). (Doc. 45.) In 24 his Motion, Plaintiff requests an order to ensure his “due process and constitutional right 25 to ‘access to the court’ … to allow prep of basis motions in compliance with rules of the 26 court and applicable law.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that 10 hours per week constitutes 27 reasonable access to the law library and that previous courts have found that 11 hours per 28 week meets the standard. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that, as a pro se plaintiff, he requires three 1 times the number of hours as trained legal counsel to handle his case. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff 2 contends that from January 2 to February 13, 2024 he was only permitted 12 hours and 35 3 minutes in the law library, an average of 1.92 hours per week, to manage his three cases. 4 (Id. at 5.) 5 “Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to courts guaranteed by the 6 Fourteenth Amendment.” Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation 7 omitted). “Included within that right of access to courts is a prisoner’s right of access to 8 adequate law libraries or legal assistance from trained individuals.” Id. “[T]here is no 9 established minimum requirement for satisfying the access requirement; rather, a 10 reviewing court should focus on whether the individual plaintiff before it has been denied 11 meaningful access.” Id. (quotation omitted). 12 “Precedent ‘does not dictate a minimum number of hours or any other requirement 13 for satisfying the right of access.’” Asberry v. Relevante, Case No. 1:16-cv-01741-JLT- 14 HBK, 2022 WL 1490613, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2022) (quoting Witkin v. Swarthout, 15 No. 2:13-cv-1931 KJN P, 2013 WL 6054451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013)). “‘The 16 Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner unlimited access to the law library; prison 17 officials of necessity must regulate the time, manner and place in which library facilities 18 are used.’” Id. (quoting Harris v. Yates, No. C 07-808 MHP (pr), 2008 WL 60406, at *2 19 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2008)). “‘Ordinary prison limitations on ... access to the law library …’ 20 do not constitute extraordinary circumstances or make it impossible to file on time.” 21 Cuevas v. Chappell, Case No. 12-cv-01161-YGR (PR), 2015 WL 6735294, at *3 (N.D. 22 Cal. Nov. 4, 2015) (quoting Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009)) (finding 23 that a limitation of less than 3 hours of law library access per week is not extraordinary on 24 its face); see e.g., Jackson v. Walker, No. CIV S-06-2023 WBS GGH P, 2008 WL 822143, 25 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008) (finding that making generic claims about the limits and 26 deficiencies of prison law library access does not sufficiently demonstrate that a plaintiff’s 27 right of access to the courts is being impaired absent a present obligation to submit 28 documents within a time certain) (emphasis added). 1 “A court may order increased access to the library only if a prisoner’s current access 2 is so deficient as to deprive him his fundamental right of access to the courts.” Baker v. 3 Kernan, No. CIV S-05-1669 JAM KJM P, 2008 WL 2705028, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 4 2008) (finding that two hours of library access per week is not “so deficient as to deprive 5 [the plaintiff] of his fundamental right of access to the courts” when a plaintiff has not 6 offered explanation as to why two hours per week is insufficient). Additionally, a federal 7 court may only issue an injunction directing a facility to grant a plaintiff additional access 8 to the facility’s law library if it has personal jurisdiction over the party and subject matter 9 jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 10 the court. Marshall v. Rain, Civil No. 04cv403 L(WMc), 2008 WL 3851551, at *1 (S.D. 11 Cal. Aug. 15, 2008) (finding that the district court had no authority to order a non-party 12 medical facility to provide a plaintiff with increased library access). 13 Here, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish that his law library access 14 is so deficient that he has been deprived of his constitutional right to access the courts. 15 Plaintiff admits that he has been granted access to the law library on multiple occasions 16 and that he averages 1.92 hours per week. (See Doc. 45 at 5.) Plaintiff also attaches two 17 inmate request forms in which he is granted access to the law library. (Id. at 6–7.) Other 18 California courts have found that comparable access is sufficient. See e.g., Marshall, 2008 19 WL 3851551, at *1. While Plaintiff asserts that previous courts have found that 11 hours 20 per week meets the standard, Plaintiff does not include a citation to any such case. 21 Likewise, while Plaintiff argues that, as a pro se plaintiff, he requires three times the 22 number of hours as trained legal counsel to handle his case, Plaintiff has not explained how 23 he came to this determination and what, if anything, he needs to do to prepare for his case. 24 The Court also notes that there are no pending motions for which Plaintiff is required 25 to respond that would require additional library access. Absent a looming deadline, 26 Plaintiff fails to demonstrate his right of access to the courts is being impaired. See 27 Jackson, 2008 WL 822143, at *1. Finally, because BRCF is not a party to Plaintiff’s 28 1 || lawsuit, the Court may not issue an injunction requiring BRCF to grant Plaintiff additional 2 library access. See Marshall, 2008 WL 3851551, at *1. 3 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || DATE: April 18, 2024

7 HON. RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4