James v. Coyne
3:16-cv-02823
S.D. Cal.Jan 26, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Kyle Robert James, a pro se, in forma pauperis litigant, filed a § 1983 action and is currently detained at San Diego County Central Jail for a criminal retrial where he has appointed counsel.
- While in jail, James says he was denied “pro per” designation, denied law library access and legal supplies, and was without legal property and medication for 10 days.
- James asks the federal court to order the Sheriff’s Department to grant him “pro per” status, to declare his access-to-courts and free-speech rights, to warn the Sheriff about sanctions for future violations, and to take judicial notice of the alleged withholding of his property and medication.
- The case is beyond the pleading stage (answer filed and amendment deadline passed), and James has filed multiple motions from jail since December 21, 2017.
- The Court reviewed the motion and declarations and considered constitutional access-to-courts standards and the judicial-notice rule in denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court can order jail to designate James as "pro per" and grant law-library access | James: denial of "pro per" status prevents his access to legal supplies and library to pursue his federal § 1983 claims | Sheriff: designation and library access are jail management matters; access-rights are limited | Denied: court will not order "pro per" designation; access-rights limited to meaningful ability to litigate pleadings and require actual injury |
| Whether James has a constitutional right to a law library independent of court access | James: claims a freestanding right to law library and supplies while detained | Sheriff: law library is a means, not a freestanding right; must show actual prejudice to litigate | Denied: no abstract right to law library; must show actual injury to existing or contemplated litigation |
| Whether the Court should issue declarations/warnings and threaten sanctions against Sheriff now | James: requests declaration of rights and warning of sanctions for future violations | Sheriff: relief is advisory and premature; court cannot give advisory opinions | Denied: request akin to advisory opinion; court refuses declaratory/warning relief |
| Whether Court should take judicial notice of allegations that legal property and medications were withheld for 10 days | James: asks court to take notice of those factual events | Sheriff: such factual allegations are disputed and not appropriate for judicial notice | Denied: allegations are not facts "not subject to reasonable dispute" under Rule 201; judicial notice refused |
Key Cases Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (establishes inmates’ right of access to courts and the permissive use of law libraries or other assistance)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (limits access-to-courts right to presentable claims and requires actual injury; rejects abstract right to law library)
- Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1995) (access-to-courts right applies principally during pleading stage of habeas and civil-rights actions)
- Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1992) (federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions)