Carpenter v. Sullivan, et al.

Filing 158

ORDER denying 104 Motion for assistance facilitating communication with inmate witnessess signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 10/31/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIE LEE CARPENTER,

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00114-AWI-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED
MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE FACILITATING
COMMUNICATION WITH INMATE
WITNESSES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
RENEWAL WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS

v.
W. . SULLIVAN, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. 104)
/

Plaintiff Willie Lee Carpenter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff
filed a motion to compel to allow Plaintiff to correspond with inmate witnesses and to compel to
provide locations of nineteen inmates in order to prepare evidence for his case. (Doc. 84). On
December 14, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion and stated that before the Court would
intervene by requesting that Plaintiff and his inmate witnesses be authorized to correspond, Plaintiff
must demonstrate that his potential inmate witnesses possess information relevant to this litigation
and that Plaintiff must first follow the regulations for inmate correspondence pursuant to Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 15 § 3139 (2010). (Doc. 90).
The Court also informed Plaintiff that the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over
anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, and cannot order that Plaintiff be allowed to correspond
with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665
(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454
U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th
1

Cir. 2006).
On February 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a renewed his motion for Court-facilitated
correspondence with inmate witnesses. (Doc. 104). In Plaintiff’s motion, he has detailed the
relevant knowledge of the inmate witnesses with whom he wishes to correspond. (Doc. 104).
However, Plaintiff, has not demonstrated that he has first followed the procedures as outlined in
section 3139 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and Plaintiff has failed to provide
documentation that he has been refused the ability to correspond with inmate witnesses. (Doc. 104).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for Court-facilitated inmate
correspondence, filed February 14, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice to renewal within
forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
0jh02o

October 31, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2