Christopher D. Warsaw v. Captain J. Garcia, CDCR A.W - A May and Staff A. Perez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for access to the court, seeking specific legal resources from the correctional facility. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the motion failed to specify what access was being denied or what specific relief was sought.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Access to the Court is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion was deficient because it did not specify the nature of the alleged deprivation or the specific relief requested. Denying a motion without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow a pro se litigant to refile a more specific motion, particularly given the court's acknowledgment of the plaintiff's underlying constitutional right to access the courts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the standard for evaluating motions for access to the court, noting that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual injury or specify the denial of access. The court appropriately cited Lewis v. Casey to frame the right to access as contingent on the ability to litigate specific claims, and denied the motion without prejudice to allow for a more specific filing. The reliance on district court and circuit court precedent for the specific requirements of legal materials is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER D. WARSAW, Case No.: 25-cv-1262-JO-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE COURT 14 CAPTAIN J. GARCIA, CDCR A.W [Dkt. No. 21] - A MAY AND STAFF A. PEREZ, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Access to the Court. Dkt. 18 No. 21. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring the Richard J. Donovan 19 Correctional Facility (“RJD”) to provide him with access to materials that he needs 20 to litigate his case. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks access to the law library, 21 photocopies, postage, pens and paper, and legal phone calls. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff 22 argues that these materials are necessary for his communications with the Court 23 and that the lack of access to these items is “hindering and obstructing” him. Id. 24 at 2. However, Plaintiff’s motion does not describe with any degree of specificity 25 what he asserts is being denied to him and what specific relief he is seeking. For 26 example, it is unclear from the motion whether Plaintiff asserts he is being denied 27 all access to a law library or whether his access is limited in some other manner. 28 1 ||Nor is it clear whether Plaintiff contends he is being denied postage and other 2 ||supplies for his legal filings. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT 3 || PREJUDICE. 4 Plaintiffs motion includes a 2018 order issued by the Honorable Kenly Kiya 5 || Kato addressing Plaintiff's request for similar relief in a different case. /d. at 3-4. 6 || Judge Kato declined to order RJD to provide plaintiff access to the law library and 7 ||legal calls but noted that Plaintiff “needs access to, among other things, legal 8 ||materials regarding the pending matter, a law library, writing materials, and legal 9 ||calls, as permitted by jail rules, to represent himself in the pending proceedings.” 10 || /d. at 3. 11 While the Court will not order RJD to provide Plaintiff with specific legal 12 ||materials at this time, Plaintiff, like all inmates, is entitled to meaningful access to 13 |/the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977) overruled on other 14 || grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). This right to access the courts 15 |lincludes cases, such as this one, proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. See 16 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353-55. “Inmates must be provided with a ‘reasonable amount 17 ||of time in the law library, in addition to writing materials and postage for 18 || communication with courts.” Vernon v. Larios, No. 23CV787-JO (MSB), 2023 WL 19 ||4412167, at *3 (S.D. Cal., July 7, 2023); see also Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 20 |}1510 (9th Cir. 1991) (“While the Constitution does not require any particular 21 ||number of pens or sheets of paper, it does require some.”). 22 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: March 20, 2026 ait 24 Tb Lh, 25 ‘Hon. DavidD.LeshnerSCS™S 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28