(PC) Young v. Corcoran State Prison Visiting Staff

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GALE J. YOUNG, et al. No. 1:24-cv-00776-KES-SAB (PC) 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION 11 v. ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 12 CORCORAN STATE PRISON VISITING STAFF, 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On October 29, 2024, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for denial of 18 regular visitation privileges. Defendant now requests further clarification of Plaintiff’s claim and 19 seeks an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. 20 Defendant is advised that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint states a cognizable claim 21 against Christina Patino (previously identified as a Doe Defendant) for denial of his First 22 Amendment right to association based on the improper denial of all visitation while he was 23 detained at California State Prison, Corcoran.1 The Supreme Court does not hold or imply “that 24 any right to association is altogether terminated by incarceration,” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 25 126, 131 (2003), but limitations are permissible if they bear a rational relation to legitimate 26 1 The Court notes that the October 29, 2024 screening order did not rule out a claim under the First Amendment for 27 denial of a right to association, but ordered Plaintiff provide additional facts if he was able to do so. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint provides sufficient notice as to the nature of his claim of being denied 28 all visitation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 1 | penological interests, id. at 132, and satisfy the Turner requirements. Id. at 135-36 (citing Turner 2 | v.Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).) A prison regulation alleged to infringe on First Amendment 3 | rights is “valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 4 | 89. Four factors are considered in making the determination: (1) whether there is a “valid rational 5 || connection” between the prison regulation and the government interest justifying it; (2) whether 6 | there is an alternative means available to the prisoner to exercise the right; (3) whether an 7 || accommodation would have “a significant ‘ripple effect’” on the guards, other inmates, and 8 | prison resources; and (4)whether there is an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner “at 9 | de minimis cost to valid penological interests.” Murphy v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 10 | 982-83 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91). 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within fourteen (14) days from the date 13 of service of this order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 16 | Dated: _ July 28, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28