Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Navarro

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 9, 2019

LANCE WILLIAMS, CDCR#AG-2394, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER O. NAVARRO; et al., Defendants.

          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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.