Braley v. Wasco State Prison, et al

Filing 53

ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Denying Plaintiff's Motion For A Court Order (ECF Nos. 38 , 46 , 52 ) ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For An Order To Show Cause And A Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 48 ), signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/15/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

THOMAS D. BRALEY,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT
ORDER

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

13

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01423-OWW-SMS

Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 38, 46, 52)
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

15
/ (ECF No. 48)
16
17

Plaintiff Thomas D. Braley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order mandating the return of his legal property on

21

March 28, 2011. (ECF No. 38.) On May 10, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

22

recommendations herein which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties

23

that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF

24

No. 46.) Plaintiff filed objections to findings and recommendations on June 13, 2011. (ECF No.

25

52.) The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s objections.

26

On May 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause and a temporary

27

restraining order mandating the return of his legal material which has been withheld from him since

28

March 21, 2011. (ECF No. 48.) As explained in the findings and recommendations issued May 10,
1

1

2011, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides

2

in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend

3

no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or

4

plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such

5

relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

6

right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18

7

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

8

Plaintiff filed this action on September 28, 2007, alleging conspiracy and deliberate

9

indifference to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment while housed at Wasco State Prison.

10

On August 6, 2009, an order was issued dismissing the complaint with leave to amend for failure

11

to state a claim. On October 13, 2009, Plaintiff was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison and he

12

has been incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison since March 21, 2011. Since Plaintiff originally

13

filed this action on September 28, 2007, any incidents that he is alleging during his incarceration at

14

Kern Valley State Prison and Salinas Valley State Prison cannot proceed in this action as they would

15

be precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

16

Plaintiff is requesting a court order requiring Kern Valley State Prison and Salinas Valley

17

State Prison to release all legal documents. Since Plaintiff was not housed at Kern Valley State

18

Prison or Salinas Valley State Prison until more than two years after this action was filed, officials

19

at these institutions are not properly joined in this action. Additionally, an order granting Plaintiff

20

access to his legal mail would not remedy the claims upon which this action may proceed and the

21

Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order sought by Plaintiff.

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

23

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings

24

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

The findings and recommendations, filed May 10, 2011, is adopted in full;

27

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order, filed March 28, 2011, is DENIED; and

28

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause and a temporary restraining order filed
2

1
2
3

May 19, 2011, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 15, 2011
emm0d6

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3