Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MUHAMMAD KHAN, Case No. 18-cv-07490-BLF

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. NOTICE/MOTION FOR UPDATE

11 SAP LABS, LLC, [Re: ECF 120] 12 Defendant.

13 14 Plaintiff Muhammad Khan has filed a “Notice/Motion for Update,” which is a one-page 15 hand-written document addressing several issues. See Notice/Motion for Update, ECF 120. 16 First, Plaintiff advises the Court that he has been moved temporarily to a different facility 17 and requests that any mail be sent to his current address:

18 Muhammad Khan ECP 265 19 150 W. Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 20 21 Plaintiff previously advised the Court of this temporary address, which is the address of the Santa 22 Clara County Jail, and the Clerk updated Plaintiff’s address of record at that time. Accordingly, 23 the Court has been directing all mail to Plaintiff’s temporary address at the Santa Clara County 24 Jail. 25 Second, Plaintiff requests that the Court provide him with prepaid envelopes addressed to 26 the Court. It is not the Court’s practice to provide litigants with prepaid envelopes, and Plaintiff 27 has not cited any authority requiring the Court to do so in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 1 Third, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order requiring the Santa Clara County Jail □□□ 2 approve proper services and take Khan to a lexus [sic] Nexis research computer when needed.” 3 Notice/Motion for Update, ECF 120. Plaintiff has not cited, and the Court has not discovered, any 4 || legal authority under which this Court could direct the Santa Clara County Jail to provide Plaintiff 5 || with Lexis/Nexis access. There is no “abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal 6 assistance.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Prisoners do have a constitutional right of 7 access to the courts, which may be impacted by limitations on access to a prison law library. See 8 id. at 350-51. To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish 9 || that he has suffered an actual injury, that is, that “the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal 10 assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Jd. at 351; see also Alvarez v. ll Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (prisoner must show that a nonfrivolous legal claim 12 has been frustrated to make out claim of denial of access to the courts). To the extent Plaintiff 5 13 wishes to assert a claim against the Santa Clara County Jail for violation of his constitutional right 14 || of access to the courts, Plaintiff must file a separate action alleging such claim. Plaintiff's request 3 15 that this Court order the Santa Clara County Jail to grant him Lexis/Nexis access to litigation this 16 || case is DENIED. 3 17 Fourth, Plaintiff requests that the Court “send updates” regarding the status of settlement 18 || proceedings before Magistrate Judge IIIman. The undersigned has no involvement with the 19 settlement proceedings conducted by Magistrate Judge Illman and therefore cannot send Plaintiff 20 || updates regarding those proceedings. Plaintiff should direct any motions or requests regarding 21 settlement proceedings to the attention of Magistrate Judge I/man. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: June 22, 2021 han han Lh ama BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28