Williams et al v. Woodford et al

Filing 95

ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's Objection and REQUIRING Plaintiff to Comply With Procedure Set Forth in Defense Counsel's Letter 93 , 94 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/26/11. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01535-SMS PC
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
COMPLY WITH PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER

v.
JEANNE WOODFORD,

(ECF Nos. 93, 94)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff John Wesley Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

16

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2010,

17

Plaintiff filed a motion for judicial intervention to communicate with incarcerated witnesses. (ECF

18

No.81.) On April 18, 2011, the Court wrote a letter to the wardens at Salinas Valley State Prison

19

and California State Prison, Los Angeles County requesting that they facilitate communication

20

between Plaintiff and his witnesses. (ECF No. 92.) Defense counsel filed a response on May 3,

21

2011, granting Plaintiff’s request to communicate with his witnesses and setting forth the procedure

22

to be followed. (ECF No. 93.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the procedures on May 17, 2011. (ECF

23

No. 94.) Plaintiff objects to the time frame set forth for inmate communication and that prison

24

officials will review all correspondence claiming that the correspondence is confidential and is

25

entitled to attorney client or work product privilege.

26

Under no circumstance should Plaintiff expect to be allowed to correspond with his inmate

27

and parolee witnesses in complete confidentiality. As set forth in the Court’s letter, communication

28

is subject to whatever restrictions and procedures prison officials’ deemed appropriate. The Court
1

1

has requested that Plaintiff be granted permission to communicate with his witnesses. How prison

2

officials choose to accommodate this request rests soundly in their discretion.

3

The Court has reviewed the procedure proposed by Defendants’ counsel in the letter dated

4

May 3, 2011, and finds it to be reasonable and acceptable. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED

5

that Plaintiff shall comply with the procedure set forth in defense counsel’s letter dated May 3, 2011.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
icido3

May 26, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2