Robertson v. Doe
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02523
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Reginald Robertson v. J. Kaiser-Nevel, Judge Freeman denied electronic-filing and mandamus requests seeking help with court-access supplies.
Reginald Robertson, who was representing himself in the pending civil-rights case; the order also addressed proposed assistance from Gale Sanders and her organization and a request directed at jail officials.
What happened
In Reginald Robertson v. J. Kaiser-Nevel, Reginald Robertson, a pretrial detainee representing himself, filed a civil-rights case against jail staff. His third amended complaint had been accepted for later screening, but the defendants had not been served when the court considered these motions.
Robertson asked for permission to file electronically through Gale Sanders and her organization. He also filed a request asking the court to require jail officials to provide supplies, notary services, and stamps to help him access the courts. The request was prepared by Destination Freedom but signed by Robertson.
The court denied both requests. It said Robertson had not shown that he could file electronically without Sanders, who had not formally appeared as his attorney, and that mandamus was not available because the circumstances were not exceptional and another lawsuit could provide a remedy. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also found that preliminary relief was unavailable because defendants had not been notified, the required factors were not shown, and the requested relief was unrelated to the claims in the pending case.
The detailed version
- Robertson v. Doe · No. 5:20-cv-02523
- Beth Freeman
- June 14, 2021
Background
Reginald Robertson, a pretrial detainee housed at Santa Rita County Jail, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against jail staff. He was representing himself. The court had allowed him to file a third amended complaint, which the court said would be screened later. The order addressed two filings: a motion for permission to file electronically and a “petition for alternative writ of mandamus.”
Electronic-filing motion
Robertson sought permission to authorize Gale Sanders to access the docket and use electronic-filing privileges on his behalf. The court found no indication that Sanders was an attorney. It explained that, if she wanted to represent Robertson without charging him, she would need to formally appear as his attorney. Otherwise, Sanders and her organization were nonparties and could not act for Robertson, who was representing himself. The court therefore denied the motion because Robertson had not shown that he could use electronic filing without Sanders’s assistance.
Mandamus petition
The petition, signed by Robertson and apparently prepared by Destination Freedom, sought to compel the County of Alameda, Sheriff Greg Ahern, and their subordinates to provide supplies, notary services, and stamps that Robertson said were needed to access the courts. The court found no basis for relief under the cited civil-procedure rules concerning consolidation and separate trials.
The court also explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used only in exceptional circumstances, such as a serious misuse of judicial power. It held that Robertson’s lack of legal supplies and resources did not meet that standard. It further held that mandamus was unavailable because Robertson had another adequate legal remedy, including filing a separate lawsuit. The court denied the petition as without merit and stated that Robertson could bring an access-to-the-courts claim in a separate action.
Preliminary-injunction and temporary-restraining-order analysis
The court considered whether the petition could instead be treated as a request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. It found that no defendant had been served or otherwise notified, so the notice requirement for a preliminary injunction had not been met. It also found that Robertson had not established the factors required for preliminary relief, including likely success, irreparable harm, favorable balancing of the equities, and the public interest.
The court additionally held that an injunction must relate to the claims in the complaint. The pending action concerned Robertson’s alleged confinement in a visiting booth for several hours, while the petition concerned access to courts and legal supplies. The court found no sufficient connection between those matters.
Disposition
The court denied the motion for permission for electronic case filing and denied the petition for an alternative writ of mandamus as without merit. It said Robertson could file an access-to-the-courts claim in a separate action and pay the applicable filing fees. The order terminated Docket Nos. 28 and 29. This order did not decide the merits of Robertson’s underlying civil-rights complaint. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.