(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 21-CV-1443-MMA(WVG)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER DIRECTING SAN DIEGO SHERIFFS 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary, TO RECOGNIZE PETITIONER AS 15 Respondent. PRO PER LITIGANT

16 [ECF No. 34] 17 18 19 Pedro Rodriguez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner 21 has also filed “motion for order directing Sheriffs to recognize Petitioners [sic] pro se status 22 under Bounds v. Smith.” (ECF No. 34.) He explains he has “been continuously quarantined 23 [as a result of the ongoing global pandemic], continuously denied law library access and 24 caselaw, and denied access to his own legal work product and reference books.” (Id. at 1.) 25 He also engages in other unrelated discussions about his parole eligibility, which is the 26 subject of the underlying Petition and which the Court will not discuss here. He seeks an 27 Order “directing the San Diego Sheriff to recognize Petitioners [sic] pro se status and allow 28 1 access to law library [sic] as well as the Petitioners [sic] own legal work product.” (Id. at 2 11.) 3 The Supreme Court has stated that it is “beyond doubt that prisoners have a 4 constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). 5 The Court in Bounds held that this right “requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the 6 preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law 7 libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Id. at 828. However, 8 “inmates alleging a violation of Bounds must show actual injury,” a prerequisite to 9 establish standing. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Because the basic right 10 provides simply for access to courts rather than any particular means of access—such as 11 library resources or free transcripts—an actual injury to the right requires a showing that 12 the prisoner was “hindered [in] his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351. The right of 13 access-to-courts remains extremely limited. For instance, it applies only in cases where 14 inmates “attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and[] challenge the conditions of 15 their confinement,” id. at 355, and only during the pleading stage of such actions, Cornett 16 v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 Forward-looking access-to-courts claims—like the one Petitioner asserts here— 18 allege that a state actor is currently frustrating the plaintiff’s attempt to prepare or file a 19 suit. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413 (2002) (citing Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828 as 20 an example of a forward-looking claim seeking a law library to prepare a present case). 21 Two distinct elements must be present in a forward-looking claim: (1) an arguable or 22 nonfrivolous underlying claim, and (2) the present foreclosure of any meaningful 23 opportunity to pursue that claim. See Parrish v. Solis, No. 11CV1438, 2014 WL 1921154, 24 at *12 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2014) (citing Broudy v. Mather, 460 F.3d 106, 120-21 (D.C. 25 Cir. 2006) (synthesizing the requirements of forward-looking claims in Harbury and 26 Lewis); see also Harbury, 536 U.S. at 413 (a plaintiff who alleges a forward-looking claim 27 must be “presently den[ied] an opportunity to litigate”); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 (holding 28 1 || that an inmate bringing a forward-looking claim must point to a “nonfrivolous legal claim 2 || [that is] being frustrated [or] impeded”). 3 Here, Petitioner has already filed a 129-page habeas petition. (See ECF No. 1.) 4 || Additionally, he has also filed a 24-page opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, 5 ||which is now fully briefed and ready for adjudication. (See ECF No. 27.) Because 6 || Petitioner filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 1, 2021, he cannot 7 || show that he is currently being prevented from preparing further pleadings in his case. At 8 present, Petitioner simply explains that he “been continuously quarantined [as a result of 9 ||the ongoing global pandemic], continuously denied law library access and caselaw, and 10 ||denied access to his own legal work product and reference books.” (ECF No. 34 at 1.) 11 || These generalized claims regarding the present day do not directly relate to his ability to 12 || file a specific document, and, in any event, nothing is due to be filed. Moreover, he cannot 13 ||show he has suffered any actual injury since he has been able to file an opposition to the 14 || pending motion to dismiss. Based on the foregoing, the right of access to courts does not 15 || support Petitioner’s request at this time. 16 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s current motion is DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || DATED: January 28, 2022 LA Ss 20 Hon. William V. Gallo 71 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28