Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

Background

Alexander Lees, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Salinas Valley State Prison. The court had screened the operative complaint and found that it stated claims that could proceed against prison staff Ponce, Mariscal, Singsong, and Hogeland. At the time of this order, only Hogeland had been served.

Requests for Immediate and Miscellaneous Relief

Lees filed a motion concerning alleged retaliation, alleged punishment for misconduct, limited law-library access, copying problems, missing case files, unreturned discovery requests, alleged harassment by Sergeants Day and Uribe, and fear for his safety. He asked the court to order changes involving the prison law library, provide documents, restrict Day and Uribe’s contact with him, refer the case to a prisoner mediation or pro bono program, and send his motion to Hogeland’s counsel.

The court denied these requests. It explained that requests directed at the library technician, Day, Uribe, or other prison officials were outside the scope of this action because only Hogeland had been served and the court did not have jurisdiction over the other officials at that time. The court stated that documents relevant to the case should be sought through discovery from Hogeland or through a subpoena to third parties. It also said that mediation was premature because only one defendant had been served and Hogeland had not shown interest in settlement.

To the extent Lees requested appointment of counsel, the court denied that request. It applied the standard allowing counsel for an unrepresented civil litigant only in exceptional circumstances, considering the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims in light of the legal issues’ complexity. The court found that Lees’s likelihood of success was uncertain, but that he had explained his claims effectively and the legal issues did not appear unusually complex. The court stated that claims concerning the alleged retaliation or alleged misconduct by Day and Uribe would have to be brought in a separate action and directed the Clerk to send Lees civil-rights complaint forms.

Service and Case Schedule

The court ordered service on Ponce, Mariscal, and Singsong through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s electronic-service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. It directed the Clerk to send the operative complaint, the prior order authorizing service, this order, a service-waiver form, and summons materials to the department by email. The order described procedures for reporting which defendants waive service and for arranging service by the United States Marshals Service for defendants who do not waive service or cannot be reached.

The court also reset the schedule for defendants to file a summary-judgment or other dispositive motion, required a specified notice with any summary-judgment motion, and set deadlines for Lees’s opposition and defendants’ reply. The court requested that prison officials assist Lees with law-library access and needed copies.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Lees’s request for immediate injunctive and other miscellaneous relief. The court ordered electronic service on Ponce, Mariscal, and Singsong, sent Lees civil-rights complaint forms, and terminated the motion docket entry. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.