Bustamonte v. Castillon
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:22-cv-04725
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bustamonte v. Castillon, Judge DeMarchi ordered defense counsel to investigate mail problems and confirm delivery of summary-judgment papers.
Israel Bustamonte, defense counsel for Castillon, Le, Ssempebwa, and Muriithi, the Salinas Valley State Prison, and the court clerk.
What happened
In Bustamonte v. Castillon, Israel Bustamonte told the court that prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison may have interfered with mail he tried to send to defense counsel, and that he may not have received filings or court orders. The concerns included declarations related to discovery and a motion for summary judgment.
The court ordered counsel for Castillon, Le, Ssempebwa, and Muriithi to investigate whether Bustamonte received their summary-judgment motion and supporting papers. Counsel must ensure delivery if necessary, obtain relevant legal-mail-roster entries from the prison, and file a declaration by October 23, 2024. The clerk was also directed to send Bustamonte a copy of the case docket.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi did not decide the pending summary-judgment motions or determine whether prison officials interfered with Bustamonte’s mail. The order addressed the investigation and delivery of case materials.
The detailed version
- Bustamonte v. Castillon · No. 5:22-cv-04725
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 9, 2024
Background
Israel Bustamonte filed a letter stating that Salinas Valley State Prison may not have timely sent his mail and may not have timely delivered mail addressed to him. He described two occasions when he attempted to send declarations to defense counsel in response to discovery requests and a court order, but defense counsel reported not receiving them. Bustamonte suspected that prison officers were deliberately interfering with his outgoing mail.
The court noted that a prisoner has constitutional rights to send and receive mail, including mail connected with a civil case, and to access the courts without active interference by prison officials. The court also noted that mail problems had arisen previously in this case, including problems involving mail from the court itself.
Pending Motions and Investigation
The opinion states that all defendants had filed motions for summary judgment. Moeller filed a motion on April 15, 2024, and the court had received no opposition from Bustamonte. Castillon, Le, Ssempebwa, and Muriithi filed a motion on October 4, 2024. Although the certificate of service stated that the motion was mailed to Bustamonte, the court questioned whether he actually received it or other filings and orders.
The court ordered counsel for Castillon, Le, Ssempebwa, and Muriithi to:
- Investigate whether Bustamonte received their summary-judgment motion and supporting papers. If counsel could not confirm receipt, counsel had to take immediate steps to ensure the papers were delivered to Bustamonte, rather than merely to the prison.
- Obtain from Salinas Valley State Prison copies of entries in the prison’s legal-mail roster showing occasions between May 1, 2024, and October 7, 2024, when Bustamonte sent or attempted to send mail to defense counsel or the court in connection with this action.
- File a declaration by October 23, 2024, describing the investigation, any additional delivery steps, the relevant roster entries, and whether and when defense counsel received mail directed to counsel or counsel’s office. The declaration was required to attach the relevant roster pages, subject to appropriate redactions.
The clerk was directed to send Bustamonte a copy of the docket so he could check whether he had received the case’s orders and filings. The court stated that Bustamonte could request copies of particular orders by identifying their docket numbers and advised him to discuss mail problems with the prison’s litigation coordinator.
Disposition
This order directed an investigation and required steps to address possible delivery problems. It did not rule on the pending summary-judgment motions, decide whether prison officials violated Bustamonte’s constitutional rights, or determine the ultimate merits of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.