Silva v. Bacon

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 17, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00619
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

7 RAMON SILVA,

8 Plaintiff, Case No. C19-619-RAJ-MLP

9 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 10 TROY BACON, et al., MOTION TO COMPEL

11 Defendants.

13 This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before 14 the Court at the present time on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to provide him with 15 additional legal supplies. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Bacon and Ferreiro have advised him 16 he can have no more paper, envelopes, or erasers despite the fact that he still has two cases 17 pending in this Court. (Dkt. # 93.) Plaintiff claims that he is having to find alternative paper 18 sources in order to submit documents to the Court and that he is just about out of envelopes. (Id.) 19 Defendants have filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion in which they argue that the 20 motion should be denied because it is devoid of any legal authority supporting the right to 21 additional legal supplies, it lacks evidentiary support, and it was not noted in conformity with 22 LCR 7(d)(3). (Dkt. # 94.) Defendants submitted in support of their opposition brief evidence 23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 which appears to confirm that Plaintiff requested additional pro se supplies in late April 2020 2 and was advised by Sergeant Ferreiro that prisoners in civil cases receive a standard issue of pro 3 se supplies and that additional pro se supplies must be paid for by the inmate. (Dkt. # 95, Ex. B.) 4 Plaintiff was then referred to the Inmate Information Handbook for a further explanation of the

5 policy. (See id., and Ex. A at 24.) 6 Plaintiff has filed a reply in support of his motion in which he argues that although 7 providing a single set of legal supplies conforms with the King County Department of Adult and 8 Juvenile Detention (“DAJD”) Inmate Information Handbook, it does not conform with clearly 9 established precedent governing access to the courts, in particular, Bounds v. Smith and Lewis v. 10 Casey. (Dkt. # 97 at 3.) Plaintiff goes on to assert that Defendants’ refusal to provide him 11 additional legal supplies is impeding his ability to litigate properly. (Id.) 12 In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the United States Supreme Court recognized 13 that inmates have a constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts premised on the due

14 process clause. Id. at 821. The Supreme Court subsequently made clear that in order to 15 adequately allege a cause of action for deprivation of the right of access to the courts, an inmate 16 must demonstrate that he suffered some actual injury to his right of access. Lewis v. Casey, 518 17 U.S. 343 (1996). At this juncture, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any actual injury to his right of 18 access. A review of the record shows that since filing the instant motion, Plaintiff has had 19 sufficient legal supplies to file objections to the pending Report and Recommendation as well as 20 a response to Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. ## 98, 102.) No 21 additional briefing is required in this matter and, thus, there is no reasonable likelihood that 22 23

MOTION TO COMPEL - 2 1 Plaintiff’s ability to litigate this action will be impeded by Defendants’ refusal to provide 2 additional legal supplies. 3 The Court also observes that Plaintiff was recently transferred from the King County Jail, 4 the facility which he claims is denying him access to necessary legal supplies, to Western State

5 Hospital. Thus, at this juncture, Plaintiff’s access to legal supplies at the King County Jail 6 appears to be a moot issue. 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 8 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to provide him with additional legal 9 supplies (dkt. # 93) is DENIED. 10 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for 11 Defendants, and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. 12 Dated this 17th day of June, 2020.

13 A 14

MICHELLE L. PETERSON

15 United States Magistrate Judge

17 18

20 21 22 23

MOTION TO COMPEL - 3