1 WO 2 3 4 5
9 David Alexander Alter, No. CV-25-01713-PHX-JJT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Sean Gibbs,
13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court are the parties’ competing summary judgment motions. (Docs. 59, 16 60.) Upon review, the Court grants summary judgment in Defendant Sean Gibbs’ favor. 18 Plaintiff David Alexander Alter, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant in his individual 19 capacity for directing the exclusion of Plaintiff from state court facilities and law library 20 services. (Doc. 55-1 ¶¶ 8–19.) He brought two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting 21 violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process prior to his exclusion and 22 First Amendment right to access the courts. (Id. ¶¶ 23–29.) 23 On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed his partial summary judgment motion.1 (Doc. 24 59.) Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s motion and cross-moved for summary judgment as 25 to all claims. (Doc. 60, 61.) The next day, the Court entered an Order advising Plaintiff that 26 “Defendant’s Motion will be summarily granted if Plaintiff fails to respond” pursuant to 27 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i). (Doc. 62.) Sixty-one days have passed since
28 1 While not clearly titled as such, Plaintiff expressly states that, in filing the document, he “moves for partial summary judgment.” (Doc. 59 at 2.) 1 Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to Defendant’s Cross-Motion. The Court deems 2 Plaintiff’s silence as consent to summarily disposing of the Cross-Motion and the Court 3 now evaluates it on its merits. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 While Plaintiff did not separately respond to the Cross-Motion, his arguments, statement 5 of facts, and evidence raised in his preceding motion for partial summary judgment are 6 relevant to the Cross-Motion, so the Court considers them in that context. 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate 9 when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 10 movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. 11 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). As the moving party, Defendant “bears the initial 12 responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those 13 portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue 14 of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 232. When, as here, the moving party does not bear 15 the ultimate burden of proof, Defendant “must either produce evidence negating an 16 essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving 17 party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of 18 persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 19 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party does so, the nonmoving party must produce evidence 20 to support its claim or defense. Id. at 1103. In considering a motion for summary judgment, 21 the court must regard as true the nonmoving party’s evidence if it is supported by affidavits 22 or other evidentiary material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 23 The nonmoving party may not merely rest on its pleadings; it must produce some 24 significant probative evidence tending to contradict the moving party’s allegations, thereby 25 creating a material question of fact. Id. at 256–57. 27 It is undisputed that Plaintiff caused twenty disturbances in or around the Arizona 28 Superior Court for Maricopa County in downtown Phoenix, many of which led to his 1 temporary expulsion from the premises and eventually culminated in Defendant’s 2 instruction to court security to deny Plaintiff physical entry to the court facility unless he 3 had a court hearing. (Doc. 61 ¶¶ 11–19; see also Doc. 59 at 2 (Plaintiff conceding that he 4 “does not dispute incident reports, staff complaints, or allegations of disruptive conduct”).) 5 It is also undisputed that Plaintiff could physically access the courthouse to attend hearings 6 set in matters that he was involved in and could physically file documents or commence 7 new actions by dropping off papers at an exterior drop box. (Doc. 61 ¶¶ 19–21.) 8 The First Amendment provides a constitutional right to petition the government for 9 a redress of grievances, which includes a “reasonable right of access to the courts.” Hudson 10 v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984). There are several constitutionally acceptable methods 11 to assure meaningful access to the courts, such as providing access to a law library. But 12 law library access is just one of those methods, and there are “alternative means to achieve 13 that goal.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Moore v. Bd. of Trs. of 14 Yakima Cnty. Libr., 268 F. App’x 669, 671 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of a First 15 Amendment claim based on denial of access to a county law library). If a person’s access 16 to a courthouse disrupts or threatens others, administrative personnel may restrict that 17 person’s access so long as it is reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Mead v. Gordon, 583 F. 18 Supp. 2d 1231, 1243 (D. Or. 2008) (holding that when a state actor “impair[s] an 19 individual’s First Amendment right of access to court proceedings . . . the restriction must 20 be reasonable and viewpoint neutral”) (citing Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 21 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 22 Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)); see also Matter of Jordan, No. 2:23-MC-00154-PSG, 2023 WL 23 12056750, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2023) (collecting cases in which court personnel 24 restricted access to a courthouse based on a person’s disruptive or abusive conduct). 25 Plaintiff presents no evidence2 or legal authority to support that the restrictions on 26 his physical access to the courthouse and law library “frustrates [Plaintiff] in preparing and
27 2 Plaintiff presents the bulletin issued by Defendant that set forth the restrictions, Defendant’s email to court personnel regarding the same, and interparty email 28 correspondence regarding reports of the twenty incidences. (Doc 59 at 12–19). Even regarding that evidence as true, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, it does not establish or support 1 filing suits at the present time,” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413 (2002), because 2 it is undisputed that he could physically file documents, commence new actions, and enter 3 the courthouse to attend hearings in his active matters. Even if those restrictions did 4 infringe upon his First Amendment right, which they do not, there is no evidence, 5 argument, or citation to legal authority from Plaintiff that those restrictions were 6 unreasonable or not viewpoint-neutral.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5
9 David Alexander Alter, No. CV-25-01713-PHX-JJT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Sean Gibbs,
13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court are the parties’ competing summary judgment motions. (Docs. 59, 16 60.) Upon review, the Court grants summary judgment in Defendant Sean Gibbs’ favor. 18 Plaintiff David Alexander Alter, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant in his individual 19 capacity for directing the exclusion of Plaintiff from state court facilities and law library 20 services. (Doc. 55-1 ¶¶ 8–19.) He brought two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting 21 violations of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process prior to his exclusion and 22 First Amendment right to access the courts. (Id. ¶¶ 23–29.) 23 On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed his partial summary judgment motion.1 (Doc. 24 59.) Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s motion and cross-moved for summary judgment as 25 to all claims. (Doc. 60, 61.) The next day, the Court entered an Order advising Plaintiff that 26 “Defendant’s Motion will be summarily granted if Plaintiff fails to respond” pursuant to 27 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i). (Doc. 62.) Sixty-one days have passed since
28 1 While not clearly titled as such, Plaintiff expressly states that, in filing the document, he “moves for partial summary judgment.” (Doc. 59 at 2.) 1 Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response to Defendant’s Cross-Motion. The Court deems 2 Plaintiff’s silence as consent to summarily disposing of the Cross-Motion and the Court 3 now evaluates it on its merits. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 While Plaintiff did not separately respond to the Cross-Motion, his arguments, statement 5 of facts, and evidence raised in his preceding motion for partial summary judgment are 6 relevant to the Cross-Motion, so the Court considers them in that context. 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate 9 when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 10 movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. 11 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). As the moving party, Defendant “bears the initial 12 responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those 13 portions of [the record] . . . which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue 14 of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 232. When, as here, the moving party does not bear 15 the ultimate burden of proof, Defendant “must either produce evidence negating an 16 essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving 17 party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of 18 persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 19 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party does so, the nonmoving party must produce evidence 20 to support its claim or defense. Id. at 1103. In considering a motion for summary judgment, 21 the court must regard as true the nonmoving party’s evidence if it is supported by affidavits 22 or other evidentiary material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 23 The nonmoving party may not merely rest on its pleadings; it must produce some 24 significant probative evidence tending to contradict the moving party’s allegations, thereby 25 creating a material question of fact. Id. at 256–57. 27 It is undisputed that Plaintiff caused twenty disturbances in or around the Arizona 28 Superior Court for Maricopa County in downtown Phoenix, many of which led to his 1 temporary expulsion from the premises and eventually culminated in Defendant’s 2 instruction to court security to deny Plaintiff physical entry to the court facility unless he 3 had a court hearing. (Doc. 61 ¶¶ 11–19; see also Doc. 59 at 2 (Plaintiff conceding that he 4 “does not dispute incident reports, staff complaints, or allegations of disruptive conduct”).) 5 It is also undisputed that Plaintiff could physically access the courthouse to attend hearings 6 set in matters that he was involved in and could physically file documents or commence 7 new actions by dropping off papers at an exterior drop box. (Doc. 61 ¶¶ 19–21.) 8 The First Amendment provides a constitutional right to petition the government for 9 a redress of grievances, which includes a “reasonable right of access to the courts.” Hudson 10 v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984). There are several constitutionally acceptable methods 11 to assure meaningful access to the courts, such as providing access to a law library. But 12 law library access is just one of those methods, and there are “alternative means to achieve 13 that goal.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); see also Moore v. Bd. of Trs. of 14 Yakima Cnty. Libr., 268 F. App’x 669, 671 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of a First 15 Amendment claim based on denial of access to a county law library). If a person’s access 16 to a courthouse disrupts or threatens others, administrative personnel may restrict that 17 person’s access so long as it is reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Mead v. Gordon, 583 F. 18 Supp. 2d 1231, 1243 (D. Or. 2008) (holding that when a state actor “impair[s] an 19 individual’s First Amendment right of access to court proceedings . . . the restriction must 20 be reasonable and viewpoint neutral”) (citing Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 21 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 22 Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)); see also Matter of Jordan, No. 2:23-MC-00154-PSG, 2023 WL 23 12056750, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2023) (collecting cases in which court personnel 24 restricted access to a courthouse based on a person’s disruptive or abusive conduct). 25 Plaintiff presents no evidence2 or legal authority to support that the restrictions on 26 his physical access to the courthouse and law library “frustrates [Plaintiff] in preparing and
27 2 Plaintiff presents the bulletin issued by Defendant that set forth the restrictions, Defendant’s email to court personnel regarding the same, and interparty email 28 correspondence regarding reports of the twenty incidences. (Doc 59 at 12–19). Even regarding that evidence as true, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, it does not establish or support 1 filing suits at the present time,” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413 (2002), because 2 it is undisputed that he could physically file documents, commence new actions, and enter 3 the courthouse to attend hearings in his active matters. Even if those restrictions did 4 infringe upon his First Amendment right, which they do not, there is no evidence, 5 argument, or citation to legal authority from Plaintiff that those restrictions were 6 unreasonable or not viewpoint-neutral. The restrictions placed on Plaintiff’s physical 7 access to the courthouse and law library did not, as a matter of law, violate Plaintiff’s First 8 Amendment rights. 9 As to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, the “there is no constitutionally 10 protected liberty interest in unrestricted access to a courthouse.” See Schultz v. San Joaquin 11 Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 2:19-CV-02468-DAD-KJN, 2024 WL 35992, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 12 Jan. 3, 2024) (collecting cases), appeal dismissed, 2024 WL 5397243 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 13 2024). And while state law may create property interests that warrant due process 14 protections, Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972), Plaintiff 15 cites no state law that creates a property interest in physical access to a courthouse or law 16 library, and this Court is aware of none. Plaintiff was not entitled, as a matter of law, to 17 notice or have an opportunity to be heard before he was denied unfettered physical access 18 to the courthouse or law library. 20 Plaintiff having failed to produce evidence or cite legal authority that support his 21 § 1983 claims, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. While briefed 22 by the parties, the Court need not address whether qualified immunity would immunized 23 Defendant’s actions as there are sufficient and independent grounds that warrant summary 24 judgment here. 25 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment titled 26 “Establishing Personal Liability of Defendant Sean Gibbs, Declaring Qualified Immunity 27 Unavailable, and Limiting and Expediting Discovery to Damages and Causation (Doc. 59). 28 that Plaintiff was restricted from meaningful access to the courthouse. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary 2|| Judgment (Doc. 60). 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in 4|| Defendant’s favor and close this case. 5 Dated this 29th day of April, 2026. CN 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_5-