Edward Diamontiney, Cross-Appellant v. Robert G. Borg, Cross-Appellee

Good Law
918 F.2d 793·1990 WL 169501·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19589
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 6, 199088-1938, 89-15250California1,614 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

The gist of this case is the refusal of staff at Folsom Prison to acknowledge plaintiff Diamontiney’s preferred surname: Diamontiney. Due to this refusal, Diamon-tiney did not receive mail, including important legal mail from federal district court. Mail sent to him was returned undelivered because it was not addressed to Edward Dreamer, the name under which Diamonti-ney was first committed to prison. Prison officials claim their refusal was mandated by an unforgiving computer program. As could have been predicted, Diamontiney brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , claiming in essence a purposeful denial of access to the courts. In connection with this suit, the district court — after extensive hearings on the issue — granted Diamonti-ney’s request for a preliminary injunction and ordered defendant Borg “to substitute the entry of Diamontiney/Dreamer, C-63046 for Dreamer C-63046 in the mail-room computer program or otherwise insure that plaintiff receives the process of this court.”

Later, on October 14, 1988, Diamontiney alleged to the district court that mailroom staff were returning his outgoing legal mail to him with instructions to use his prison commitment name only.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.