Barry Lamon v. Tilton et al

Filing 27

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Related Cases 25 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/10/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BARRY LAMON,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00157-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON RELATED CASES

v.
JOHN TILTON, et al.,

(Doc. 25)

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Barry Lamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 26, 2009. This action is proceeding

17

against Defendant Birkholm for violation of the First Amendment and Defendants Birkholm,

18

Mayugba, and Schutt for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

19

On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a hearing so that he may show cause

20

regarding related claims raised in separate actions. Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing to sort out

21

the potentially duplicative claims in his civil actions and he cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (the All Writs

22

Act) and Local Rule 123(a) as authority for his motion.

23

The All Writs Act authorizes the issuance of extraordinary writs in aid of the issuing court’s

24

jurisdiction. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534, 119 S.Ct. 1538 (1999) (quotations omitted).

25

Plaintiff’s reliance on the All Writs Act in support of his request for an evidentiary hearing is

26

misplaced and his citation to the Act is disregarded.

27

Plaintiff is responsible for keeping track of his pending cases and there is no provision that

28

entitles Plaintiff to a general evidentiary hearing to address the issue of duplicative claims in his
1

1

pending actions. While Plaintiff’s motion was apparently motivated by the issuance of an order to

2

show cause regarding the presence of duplicative claims in case numbers 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC

3

PC Lamon v. Adams and 1:07-cv-000493-AWI-DLB PC Lamon v. Tilton, the issue is presently

4

confined to those cases and if Plaintiff wishes to be heard, he must address the issue in the case in

5

which it was raised, which is 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC PC.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is

6

HEREBY DENIED.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated:
0m8i78

June 10, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

On June 7, 2011, Judge Cohn recommended dismissal of case number 1:07-cv-01390-LJO-GBC PC on res
judicata grounds. Any disagreement with that determination must be raised in that case.

2