Troupe v. Pease et al, No. 4:2015cv05090 - Document 62 (E.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS - denying 45 Motion for Protective Order and Transfer; denying 47 Motion to Compel; denying 60 Motion for Protective Order Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)**6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Troupe v. Pease et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 No. DAVID TROUPE, 8 4:15-CV-05090-EFS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 9 10 v. CHARLES PEASE, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court are David Troupe’s Motion for Protective Order 13 and Transfer, ECF No. 45; Motion to Compel WSP, ECF No. 47; and Motion 14 for Protective Order, ECF No. 60. On November 7, 2016, the Court held 15 a pretrial conference in one of Plaintiff’s other lawsuits, case 16 number 2:13-CV-05038-EFS (Case 5038). At the hearing, the Court heard 17 argument and made rulings on various issues that Plaintiff also raises 18 in this matter. Having conducted that hearing, and having reviewed 19 the parties’ submissions, the Court is fully informed. The Court 20 denies Plaintiff’s motions for the reasons set forth below. 21 I. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TRANSFER (ECF NO. 45) 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Transfer, ECF No. 23 45, raises issues outside the scope of this case. Plaintiff also 24 fails to demonstrate any interference with his ability to pursue this 25 case. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion. 26 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A. Request for Protective Orders Plaintiff 2 requests that the Court issue a protective order 3 against Jason Kaehlor, William Hale, and Anthony Gonzalez to prevent 4 physical contact, verbal contact, being within 100 feet, and contact 5 with Plaintiff’s legal work. ECF No. 45. 6 Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion lacks any allegations as to Jason 7 Kaehlor. 8 order as to Jason Kaehlor. As a preliminary matter, the The Court therefore finds no basis to issue a protective According to Plaintiff, Defendant William Hale has called him a 9 10 “fag” and told Plaintiff to kill himself. ECF No. 45. 11 allegations are concerning, this case is not the proper avenue for 12 Plaintiff to litigate new and independent claims, even if made against 13 a 14 interference with his ability to pursue this case. 15 Court 16 appropriate as to Defendant Hale. current Defendant. finds Plaintiff’s Plaintiff 17 alleges requested that protective non-party Therefore, the order would Anthony Gonzalez ECF 45. not be denied access his legal documents on October 6, 2016, and his access on 21 October 19. ECF No. 53 at 65. However, Plaintiff fails to establish — 22 and — 23 deadlines or otherwise caused the type of “actual injury” that is 24 required for an access-to-the-courts claim. See Vandelft v. Moses, 31 25 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 91 (1995). 26 The Court finds a protective order is not currently necessary to that this No. any 20 indication property. show concede that nearly two weeks passed between Plaintiff’s request to ORDER - 2 legal allegation 19 no his Plaintiff’s Plaintiff is to do 18 there access Nor Although these caused him Defendants to miss any 1 ensure Plaintiff continues to have adequate access to the courts and 2 his files. 3 B. Request for Transfer 4 Plaintiff argues that placement at Washington State Penitentiary 5 (WSP), rather than at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, is preventing 6 him from properly participating in this lawsuit. ECF No. 45. 7 Court has not directed the Washington State Department of Corrections 8 (DOC) to place Plaintiff in any particular facility. 9 2016, the Court admonished the DOC to refrain The On October 4, from repeatedly 10 transferring 11 ability to litigate his cases, including Case 5038, which has pretrial 12 conferences and trial scheduled to take place in the near future. Plaintiff in a manner that would interfere with his 13 The Court remains determined to ensure Plaintiff is afforded 14 adequate access to the courts and a fair opportunity to present his 15 claims. 16 undermine these goals. 17 at WSP suggest he is fully capable of litigating his cases from there. 18 Moreover, 19 Plaintiff’s legal materials have been sent to WSP. ECF No. 53 at 12. 20 Thus, the Court finds no reasonable basis to interfere with DOC’s 21 decision to place Plaintiff at WSP, especially given the need for 22 Plaintiff to be able to litigate Case 5038. However, the Court finds that placement at WSP does not Stafford II. 23 Plaintiff’s numerous filings since placement Creek personnel aver that the entirety of PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL WSP (ECF NO. 47) 24 Plaintiff also requests that the Court compel WSP to prohibit 25 Shari Hall from handling his legal scans for electronic filing, create 26 a receipt-signature ORDER - 3 requirement for electronic filings, and limit 1 people who handle legal scans to those who are specifically trained to 2 do so. ECF No. 47. 3 Prisoner 4 Washington 5 orders specifically state that printed notices of electronic filings 6 are to be provided through the institution’s existing mail system. 7 This 8 consideration 9 expanding prisoners’ ability to bring claims, and Defendants have 10 supplied sworn declarations that WSP is in full compliance with the 11 directives implemented under the E-filing Initiative. See Case 5038, 12 ECF No. 276. 13 General Order Nos. 15-35-1 and 16-35-1 govern the E-Filing and Initiative the decision Washington was of created the how to by Department product limit of the the of Eastern Corrections, significant burden District on and negotiation prison staff of the and while Plaintiff has not demonstrated that WSP policies interfere with 14 his ability to litigate this case. Nor has he shown Shari Hall has 15 personally interfered with his litigation or otherwise engaged in 16 misconduct. The Court therefore denies his motion. III. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF NO. 60) 17 18 Most recently, Plaintiff asks the Court to prohibit Defendant 19 Hale from having any contact with Plaintiff, and to prohibit Defendant 20 R 21 property. 22 denies Plaintiff’s motion. Jason Morgan from having any contact with Plaintiff’s legal As it addresses issues outside the case at hand, the Court 23 Plaintiff reiterates the allegations against Defendant Hale made 24 in his earlier Motion for Protective Order and Transfer, ECF No. 45, 25 addressed above, and adds allegations that Defendant Hale physically 26 assaults Plaintiff by digging fingers into his arm during escorts. ECF ORDER - 4 1 No. 60. 2 of this case. Even if true, Plaintiff’s allegations lie outside the scope 3 Plaintiff accuses Defendant R Jason Morgan of “using his notary 4 service to read [Plaintiff]’s legal documents” after he had requested 5 notary service from the law librarian for documents relating to this 6 case. ECF No. 60. Again, however, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that 7 Defendant acting 8 undermined Plaintiff’s ability to litigate this case, and the Court 9 will not interfere unnecessarily with the internal operations of the 10 Morgan prison facility. as a notary in the prison context has The Court therefore denies his motion. IV. 11 MOVING FORWARD As this case progresses, the Court admonishes the DOC to ensure 12 13 Plaintiff continues to have adequate access to the courts. 14 Court has already advised Plaintiff in Case 5038, the Court is aware 15 that Plaintiff faces challenges in pursuing this litigation, but notes 16 that 17 especially 18 simultaneously. 19 has, when appropriate, extended deadlines and granted reconsideration 20 of issues to ensure Plaintiff is not denied access to the courts. 21 That said, the Court’s flexibility is not permission for Plaintiff to 22 air his every grievance against Defendants, WSP, and/or the DOC. 23 DOC is given broad authority to implement practices and procedures — 24 even 25 penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 26 The many if a challenges prisoner wishes — are chooses inherent to when litigate any individual multiple — lawsuits Because of these inherent difficulties, the Court inconvenient Court ORDER - 5 such As this to — that make are clear reasonably to related Plaintiff that to The legitimate “adequate” or 1 “reasonable” access to the courts is not synonymous with “unfettered” 2 access. 3 the narrow scope of his claims in this case. Plaintiff is to refrain from filing motions that are outside 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Transfer, ECF No. 45, is DENIED. 6 7 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel WSP, ECF No. 47, is DENIED. 8 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 60, is DENIED. 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall enter this Order and provide copies to Plaintiff, all counsel, and the DOC. 11 12 13 21st DATED this ___ day of November 2016. 14 _______ EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\Troupe;15-5090.Deny.Motions.LC1.docx ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
