Washington v. Adams et al

Filing 64

ORDER Denying 62 Motion for Order Directing Prison Officials to Return Legal Property signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/24/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CHRISTOPHER N. WASHINGTON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01666-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER
DIRECTING PRISON OFFICIALS TO
RETURN LEGAL PROPERTY

v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS,

13

(Doc. 62)

Defendant.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Christopher N. Washington, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 21, 2009. On

17

January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order directing prison officials at California

18

State Prison-Corcoran (Corcoran) to return his legal property.

19

The pendency of this action does not confer upon the Court jurisdiction over prison officials

20

at Corcoran regarding Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement, Summers v. Earth Island

21

Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

22

555, 559-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010),

23

and given that Plaintiff only recently transferred to Corcoran, there exist no unusual or pressing

24

circumstances warranting a courtesy inquiry, see e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 123

25

S.Ct. 2162 ( 2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial deference); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

26

472, 482-83, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-

27

day-management of prisons).

28

///
1

1

If Plaintiff is unable to meet the deadline for filing objections, which is currently set for

2

February 21, 2012, he may, once the deadline is closer, seek another extension of time. However,

3

at this juncture, Plaintiff has described nothing out of the ordinary, as in the Court’s experience, there

4

is usually some delay in obtaining personal and legal property following a transfer to a new

5

institution.

6
7

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing the return of his legal property is
HEREBY DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ie14hj

January 24, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2