(PC) Ward v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ELTON WARD, No. 2:24-cv-0158 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for an order granting him law library access 18 that is equivalent to that provided to a criminal pro per inmate. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff indicates 19 general access to the law library is twice a month whereas pro per access is once a week. Id. at 1. 20 He needs more access to the law library because his case has proceeded past screening and will 21 move at a faster pace. Id. at 1. He was told he needs to ask the court for an order granting him 22 more access. Id. 23 The constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to provide 24 prisoners with adequate law libraries or other resources. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 25 (1977). Right of access to the courts is only violated when inmate is prejudiced with respect to 26 contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a 27 nonfrivolous claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). 28 Here, there is no indication that plaintiff is receiving less access to the law library 1 | resources than he is constitutionally entitled to. The court notes that the United States Marshalls 2 || were recently directed to effect service on defendants Edwards, Griggs, and Vickers. Once 3 || service is complete, an answer is filed, and if settlement efforts are unsuccessful, the court will 4 || issue a discovery and scheduling order. The scheduling order will set various deadlines. At that 5 || time, plaintiff may use the scheduling order and/or any other court order setting a deadline in this 6 || case to gain pro per access to the law library. If, at that time, access to the law library is impeded, 7 || plaintiff may file a new motion explaining why he believes his access to the law library is 8 | constitutionally deficient and how it has prevented him from meeting a filing deadline or pursuing 9 || anonfrivolous claim. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for law library access 11 || (ECF No. 18) is denied. 12 | DATED: August 4, 2025 ~ 13 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28