United States District Court, S.D. California
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND/OR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [DOC. 20]
RUTH
BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Lance
Williams ("Plaintiff), a prisoner incarcerated at
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") in
San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se and
in forma \pauperison a civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"). (See
generally Docs. 1, 17.) On May 17, 2019, the Clerk of
Court issued a summons as to Plaintiffs Complaint and
forwarded the same to Plaintiff, along with instructions to
complete a U.S. Marshals Service Form 285, to effectuate
service of the summons and Complaint on each Defendant. (Doc.
17 at 8.) To date, there is no docket entry to reflect
service of summons and the Complaint upon any Defendant and
no Defendant has made a formal appearance in this action.
Plaintiff
filed the instant "Notice/Motion for Protective Order
and or Injunctive Relief upon Defendant C. Tiscornia"
("Motion") which is accepted nunc pro tune
to June 14, 2019. [1] (Docs. 19-20.)
The
matter is referred to the undersigned Judge for Report and
Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(1)(a). After a thorough review of
the Motion and supporting documents, this Court respectfully
recommends Plaintiffs Motion be
DENIED, without prejudice. (Doc.
20.)
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A.
Underlying Complaint
Plaintiffs
Complaint names twelve defendants and asserts three Section
1983 causes of action for First and Eighth Amendment
violations.[2]
Count
One claims Defendants Navarro, Bagnol, Garsilaso and Estrada
violated Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights by engaging in
conduct deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs medical needs.
(See Doc. 1 at 5-7.) Liberally construing Count One,
Plaintiff also asserts a First Amendment claim against
Navarro for retaliation. (Id. at 7.) Counts Two and
Three assert, in part, First Amendment violations for denial
of access to courts, including Plaintiff being deprived the
opportunity to contact his attorney regarding active criminal
and civil cases and also being deprived access to the law
library. (See Doc. 1 at 8-11; Doc. 20 at Ex. A, 5.)
Plaintiff claims A-yard Building Staffs refusal to allow
Plaintiff to contact his attorney caused Plaintiff to
"miss a court deadline" but he apparently received
an extension on such deadline. (Doc. 1 at 8.) Plaintiff also
claims Tiscornia, the law library clerk, only issues law
library passes during Plaintiffs scheduled yard time.
(Id. at 11.) Count Three asserts Eighth Amendment
violations for being denied adequate out-of-celltime. (Doc. 1
at 9-10.)
The
Complaint seeks injunctive relief "preventing
[D]efendants from retaliating on [P]laintiff' and
engaging in conduct as described in the Complaint, in
addition to compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 1 at
13.)
B.
Instant Motion
On June
7, 2019, Plaintiff allegedly filled out a photocopy slip at
the law library requesting a copy job for his active criminal
case in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See Doc.
20, Ex. A, 5.) After Plaintiff requested a copy job, he
claims Tiscornia "began reading the material violating
[P]laintiff s confidentiality" and refused to make
copies. (Doc. 20, 1.) Plaintiff claims "ever since . . .
Tiscornia has been served with this case['s] Summons
& Complaint[3] she has been negative, retalliating [sic]
refusing to provide services, minimizing [P]laintiff s law
library access . . ." (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff
alleges Tiscornia's conduct is continuing and he requests
the Court take judicial notice of his administrative
grievance on the same. (Id. at 3; Ex. E, 31-33.)
Plaintiff
seeks a "protective order" and requests various
forms of injunctive relief relating to Tiscornia's
conduct. (Doc. 20 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests an
order requiring: Tiscornia's removal and replacement from
A-yard law library "before she falsifies a [Rules
Violation Report] against [P]laintiff which she has a history
of doing to inmates"; Tiscornia to "stop reading,
asking where it's going 'legal copies' and she do
her job of making sure copies are not inappropriate
material"; Tiscornia to issue law library passes to
Plaintiff "everyday [sic] it's open for both [AM]
and [PM] hours" and to comply with all of Plaintiff s
copy requests; Tiscornia to provide unlimited supplies of
paper, envelopes, exhibit sheets and immediately restore
typewriter access to the law library; and Tiscornia to
recognize Plaintiffs "priority legal user" status
to the law library. (Id. at 2-3.)
Finally,
Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of a
grievance appeal response relating to Plaintiffs request for
library ...