Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 285

ORDER GRANTING 281 Motion for Extension of Time to File Trial Preparedness Statement ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 284 Motion for Order for CSP-Sacramento Prison Officials to Explain Plaintiff's Continued Retention Due to Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 09/03/2015. (Copy of this order forwarded to Wardens and Litigation Coordinators at CSP-Sacramento and CSP-Corcoran) (Case Management Deadline: on or before 10/3/2015) (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. DERRAL ADAMS, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SMS PC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR 30 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE TRIAL PREPAREDNESS STATEMENT (Doc. 281) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER FOR CSP-SACRAMENTO PRISON OFFICIALS TO EXPLAIN PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED RETENTION DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 284) 18 19 20 21 On August 11, 2015, the Court notified the parties of Judge O'Neill's impacted trial calendar and directed the parties to file statements of their preparedness for trial. (Doc. 279.) On August 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty day extension of time to file his 22 trial preparedness statement. (Doc. 281.) In his motion, Plaintiff explained that, in order to 23 attend the settlement conference, Plaintiff was transferred to CSP-Sacramento from California 24 Correctional Institution (ACCI@) in Tehachapi, California. (Id.) Unfortunately, his legal property 25 and documents were left at CCI and were not transported with Plaintiff to CSP-Sac and he needs 26 those documents to generate his trial preparedness statement. (Id.) 27 28 On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion indicating that he is still at CSP-Sac and 1 1 seeks an explanation why he has not been transferred back to CCI. (Doc. 284.) Plaintiff indicates 2 that he has submitted five requests to prison staff be returned to CCI to no avail. (Id.) 3 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 4 general or over prison staff wherever Plaintiff may be held. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 5 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The 6 Court=s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon 7 which this action is proceeding. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 8 Further, A[a] federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties 9 and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 10 persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 11 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion for an explanation as to why he 12 remains at CSP-Sac must be denied for lack of jurisdiction. 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for a thirty day extension of time to file his trial preparedness 14 statement, filed on August 24, 2015 (Doc. 281), is GRANTED, 15 16 2. Plaintiff must file his trial preparedness statement on or before October 3, 2015; 17 3. Plaintiff's motion for an explanation for his retention at CSP-Sacramento, filed on August 26, 2015 (Doc. 284), is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction; 18 4. The assistance of the Wardens and Litigation Coordinators at CSP-Sacramento 19 20 and CSP-Corcoran are requested to facilitate Plaintiff's access to his legal 21 property left at CSP-Sacramento; and 5. The Clerk's Office is ordered to forward copies of this order to the Wardens and 22 Litigation Coordinators at CSP-Sacrament and CSP-Corcoran. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 3, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?