Haney v. Saldana, et al
Filing
80
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Emergency Court Order 79 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/9/11. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRUCE PATRICK HANEY,
10
11
12
CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REQUESTING EMERGENCY
COURT ORDER
v.
SALDANA, et al.,
13
(Doc. 79)
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff, Bruce Patrick Haney (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se
16
and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 6, 2004.
17
On January 19, 2011, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations (the "F&R")
18
recommending, among other things, that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
19
Nelson and Saldana be granted and that the case be closed. (Doc. 72.) The parties were given
20
thirty days from service of the F&R to file objections. (Id.) On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed
21
a motion requesting a one-hundred twenty (120) day extension of time to file his objections to
22
the F&R. (Doc. 73.) This request was granted and Plaintiff’s objections are due by June 21,
23
2011. (Doc. 74.)
24
On May 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion Requesting Emergency
25
Court Order,” seeking an order directing the Warden of Corcoran State Prison to provide Plaintiff
26
with copies of all his legal documents with court deadlines. (Doc. 79, 1:18-25.) Plaintiff states
27
that he is having difficulty obtaining multiple copies of documents to comply with the filing
28
requirement of serving a copy on Defendants in this case (and apparently others), and being able
1
1
to retain a copy of documents he files for his own records. Plaintiff states that, even though he
2
has completed his objections to the F&R, the prison has refused to copy them.
3
The Court recognizes that prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging
4
deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are
5
needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley
6
v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970).
7
Moreover, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring the prison to make copies for
8
Plaintiff and/or to impose any requirements on parties not presently before it. See Zepeda v.
9
United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, this Court
10
is unable to issue an order in this case imposing requirements on parties in other actions. Id.
11
Since all of the defendants in this action are represented by the Attorney General’s Office,
12
Plaintiff need not serve them with copies of his objections to the F&R as they will receive service
13
of the filing via the court’s electronic filing system. However, as an officer of the court, the
14
Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case is requested to contact the Litigation Coordinator
15
at CSP-Corcoran to facilitate the copying of one set of Plaintiff’s objections to the F&R for
16
Plaintiff to retain with his records. It is this Court’s understanding that the California
17
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation imposes limitations on copies for prisoner. This
18
order is not asking that any such limitations be waived. Rather, the Court is concerned by
19
Plaintiff’s representation that the prison is refusing to copy any of his documents and, due to the
20
current posture (that the F&R will likely resolve the case in its entirety) and age of this case, the
21
Court desires to proceed without a further extension of time. If necessary, the Deputy Attorney
22
General assigned to this case is granted leave to file a status report delineating its efforts and
23
responses received.
24
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion Requesting Emergency Court
25
Order, filed May 6, 2011 (Doc. 79), is hereby DENIED.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated:
ie14hj
May 9, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?