Opinion
3:12-cv-00030-LRH (WGC)
08-29-2012
CHRISTOPHER O'NEILL, Plaintiff, v. DR. ROBERT BANNISTER, et. al. Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Access to Legal Assistance. (Doc. # 27.) Defendants have opposed. (Doc. # 29.)
Refers to court's docket number.
Plaintiff seeks ongoing access to inmate Mark Miller for legal assistance in this action. (Doc. # 27.) Plaintiff asserts that he has been preparing and filing documents in this case with the assistance of Miller, who he describes as an experienced "jailhouse lawyer." (Id.)Plaintiff seeks this order because he anticipates he is going to be transferred out of the same unit as Miller and will no longer be able to communicate with him. (Id.)
What Plaintiff is actually requesting is a form of injunctive relief. Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue directly, other circuits have repeatedly held that a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show "[a] relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint." Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); accord Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250-51 (10th Cir. 2010); Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010); Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997).
This action relates to Plaintiff's claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in connection with the treatment of his hepatitis C. If Plaintiff has a claim related to his ability to communicate with his inmate legal assistant, he should address it first through Nevada Department of Corrections' internal grievance system, and if it cannot be resolved through those channels, by filing a separate action related to obtaining legal assistance from another inmate.
Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Access to Legal Assistance (Doc. # 27) is DENIED.
_______________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE