Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong

Background

Alexander Lees, an inmate housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. The order addressed requests in Docket Nos. 46 and 49.

In Docket No. 46, Lees asked to change the case name to omit defendant Singson because Singson had died. He also requested appointment of counsel, a settlement conference, and a trial date. In Docket No. 49, the defendants asked to file under seal unredacted copies of a notice of Singson’s death and documents verifying attempts to serve that notice. The documents included the full name and home address of Singson’s surviving spouse and details about a car parked in front of her home.

Rulings on Lees’s Requests

The court treated Lees’s request to change the case name as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 to voluntarily dismiss all claims against Singson. The court granted that request and dismissed defendant Singson from the action.

The court denied Lees’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to the court’s appointment of counsel on its own initiative if circumstances later required it. The court found that Lees’s likelihood of success was uncertain, but that he had articulated his claims effectively so far and that the legal issues did not appear unusually complex. The court also requested that the prison litigation coordinator facilitate Lees’s access to the law library and directed the Clerk to send the order to that coordinator.

The court denied Lees’s requests for a settlement conference and a trial date. It found that nothing in the record showed that a settlement conference was appropriate at that stage and that setting a trial date was premature because dispositive motions had not yet been filed.

Sealing Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to seal the unredacted notice of death and the related service-verification documents. The court relied on the reduced public need for access to documents attached to non-dispositive motions and the need to protect the privacy and safety of Singson’s surviving family. Docket No. 49-2 was ordered to remain under seal until the conclusion of the case and any appellate proceedings. If defense counsel did not request the documents’ return after those proceedings, the documents would be destroyed under the courts’ normal records-destruction policy.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that the request to dismiss all claims against Singson was granted and Singson was dismissed from the action; Lees’s request for counsel was denied without prejudice; Lees’s requests for a settlement conference and trial date were denied as premature; and the defendants’ sealing motion was granted. The order terminated Docket Nos. 46 and 49.