Roberts v. Salano et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING 39 Motion for Court Order Mandating Return of Property signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/9/2009. (Bradley, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 On August 4, 2009, Plaintiff James Edward Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 16 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action, filed a motion seeking an order mandating that prison 17 officials at California State Prison-Lancaster provide Plaintiff with his property, including his legal 18 work. As in the Court's general practice, the motion is construed as one seeking preliminary 19 injunctive relief. 20 This action is proceeding against Defendant Salano for violating Plaintiff 's right to privacy 21 by disclosing Plaintiff's medical condition while Plaintiff was incarcerated at California State 22 Prison-Corcoran. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order intended to remedy Plaintiff's 23 current conditions of confinement because such an order would not remedy the legal claim at issue 24 in this action. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley 25 Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 26 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 If Plaintiff needs an extension of time to comply with a deadline, he may contact the Court, and it 28 1 / v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SALANO, JAMES EDWARD ROBERTS, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER MANDATING RETURN OF PROPERTY (Doc. 39)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3 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

will address the request and issue an appropriate order to facilitate Plaintiff's ability to comply with the deadline.1 However, the Court cannot issue an order generally mandating that Plaintiff be provided with all of his property. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion, filed August 4, 2009, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 November 9, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court issued a scheduling order on August 18, 2009, and at this time, there are no motions pending b e f o r e the Court requiring a response from Plaintiff .

1

2