Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sandra Walker, et al, ) ) ) Defendants. ______________________________________ ) Allace Cornellier, No. CV 04-0724 PHX PGR (JM) ORDER

Pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff Allace Cornellier: Motion for a Court Order [Docket No. 19]; Motion to Deny and Objection to Defendant's Using Case Law Citations In/On Any Documents Submitted [Docket No. 21]; and Motion for an Order [Docket No. 23]; Motion for Action On All Previous Motions Filed [Docket No. 26]; and Motion for Extension of Time [Docket No. 27]. For the reasons explained below, the Motion for Action On All Previous Motions is granted and each of the other motions is denied. Motion for Action On All Previous Motions Filed [Docket No. 26] In this motion, Plaintiff requests that his previously filed motions be addressed. This motion is granted and each of his outstanding motions is addressed herein. Motion for a Court Order [Docket No. 19] In this motion, Plaintiff claims that a conflict of interest exists because he "must meet with at paralegal (now defendant) who is assigned to 'assist' prisons in their legal matters." As a result, Plaintiff contends, "[t]he defendant may deny, or delay, any requests made by the Plaintiff in this matter, in which that denial, or delay, would prevent Plaintiff from

Case 2:04-cv-00724-PGR-JJM

Document 35

Filed 09/27/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

complying with, or to, any court orders, and even any requests that Plaintiff may have." It is clear from this contention that Plaintiff is alleging a potential violation of his right to access the courts. To state a claim based on a violation of the right of access to the courts,

a prisoner must allege "actual injury." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996). "Actual injury" is defined as the prisoner being hindered in his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. Id. "Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Id. The right to access to the court is limited to the initiation of a court action. The state is not required to enable the prisoner to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. at 354. Under Lewis v. Casey, Plaintiff's claim must be denied for several reasons. First, Plaintiff does not allege actual injury under this standard. He merely offers potential ramifications of the purported conflict between he and the prison's paralegal. These abstract concerns do not constitute a viable claim. Second, as he has no independent right to legal assistance, id. at 351, he has not stated a claim. Third, his claim involves his ability to litigate effectively after commencement of this litigation. This is not a right protected by Lewis or the Constitution. Motion to Deny and Objection to Defendant's Using Case Law Citations In/On Any Documents Submitted [Docket No. 21] In this motion, Plaintiff argues that "by Defendant's use of case law, it leaves Plaintiff

20

at a disadvantage, which must not be permitted by this court." This claim must fail because
21

inmates do not have a right to a law library, id. at 351, and because Plaintiff has again failed
22

to show he suffered actual injury as a result of his inability to access case law.
23

Motion for an Order [Docket No. 23]
24

The United States Marshal has been unsuccessful in its efforts to serve defendant
25

Barbara Ulliberry and Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order that ADOC and/or the
26

Arizona Attorney General provide her home address to the Marshal so that service can be
27

accomplished. As there is now pending a dispositive motion which, if granted, would
28 2 Case 2:04-cv-00724-PGR-JJM Document 35 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

terminate this case, including the claim against Ulliberry, the Court denies Plaintiff's request without prejudice. If the pending Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 25] is denied, Plaintiff may again request this information. Motion for Extension of Time [Docket No. 27] In this motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Since filing this motion, Plaintiff has responded to the Motion to Dismiss and this motion is therefore denied as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Court Order [Docket No. 19] is denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Deny and Objection to Defendant's Using Case Law Citations In/On Any Documents Submitted [Docket No. 21] is denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Order [Docket No. 23] is denied without prejudice; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Action On All Previous Motions Filed [Docket No. 26] is granted; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time [Docket No. 27] is denied as moot; DATED this 27th day of September, 2005.

3 Case 2:04-cv-00724-PGR-JJM Document 35 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 3 of 3