Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 187

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Ex Parte 186 Motion for Order Granting Plaintiff Telephone Calls, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/3/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
TELEPHONE CALLS
(ECF No. 186)

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“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. Plaintiff initiated this action on

19

March 17, 2011. This action proceeds against Defendants Romero and Gallagher for alleged events

20

occurring at Kern Valley State Prison. The matter is currently stayed pending the results of a

21

settlement conference scheduled for June 2, 2015.

22

On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a court order to be issued to the

23

Warden/Custodian of California Men’s Colony, East to allow Plaintiff to make confidential legal calls

24

in order to retain representation at the settlement conference or related advice. Plaintiff indicates that

25

he would have a third party pay for the cost of these calls. (ECF No. 186.)

26

The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over the Warden or any other

27

prison official at the California Men’s Colony, East in San Luis Obispo, and the Court cannot issue an

28

order requiring prison officials to grant Plaintiff access to the telephone. See, e.g., Summers v. Earth
1

1

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (the plaintiff bears the burden of

2

establishing standing for each form of relief he seeks in federal court); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,

3

461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.

4

2010). Further, there is no indication that Plaintiff is unable to contact potential legal counsel by mail.

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 3, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2