Opinion
Civil Action 22-573-SDD-RLB
07-05-2023
RULING
SHELLY D. DICK, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
The Court has carefully considered the record, the law applicable to this action, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. dated March 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs' Objection, the Defendants' Response, and the Plaintiffs' Reply. The Court has undertaken a de novo review and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Rec. Doc. 143.
Rec. Doc. 147.
Rec. Doc. 149.
Rec. Doc. 158.
Plaintiffs seek access to four non-party juveniles who are in the custody of the OJJ. The Court notes that Plaintiffs' counsel's letter to OJJ to schedule meetings with the four non-party youth detainees is not a letter of representation. The subject youth are not clients of Plaintiffs' counsel merely by virtue of their being putative class members. Hence, the Court is not presented with a situation where an attorney has been denied access to or an opportunity to meet with his/her client.
Rec. Doc. 113-4.
The argument that the named Plaintiffs, Alex A., et al., are injured by OJJ's refusal to grant access to other “similarly situated” youth is subterfuge for saying that the Plaintiffs are injured by the inability of Plaintiffs' counsel to conduct discovery. Because the nonparties are in OJJ custody, the Plaintiffs must seek access to them. However, discovery is stayed, and as juveniles in State detention, Plaintiffs are impeded from simply interviewing these non-parties. This does not present a claim of unconstitutional denial of access to counsel. For the reasons articulated by Magistrate Judge Bourgeois, the Plaintiffs lack standing to urge the subject Motion for Access to Counsel.
Rec. Doc. 118.
Rec. Doc. 113.
The Court hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein.
ACCORDINGLY,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Access to Counsel is DENIED.
Rec. Doc. 113.