IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 6, 2013
MICHAEL TENORE, PLAINTIFF,
NATHANAEL GOODGAME, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is in the discovery stage. In the motion before the court, plaintiff seeks an order granting him frequent contact with his "inmate paralegal assistant and witness" Thomas Hightower (No. J98566), including the ability to mail legal materials to each other at their respective institutions. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Valley State Prison; Mr. Hightower is at Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff does not explain what knowledge Hightower has of facts relevant to the instant claims. (Dkt. No. 40.)
Defendants have opposed the motion. (Dkt .No. 41.) They assert that plaintiff can request approval to correspond with Hightower pursuant to California Code of Regulations tit. 15 § 3139, which sets forth a procedure by which inmates may apply to correspond with other inmates. "There shall be no limits set on the number of times approved inmates . . . can correspond with each other" unless approval is revoked due to disciplinary, safety or security reasons. 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3139(d).
As plaintiff does not allege that he requested to correspond with Hightower through available means, or that such a request was unreasonably denied, the court will deny plaintiff's motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's January 14, 2013 Motion for Court-Ordered Access Via Correspondence (Dkt. No. 40) is denied.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.