Bolds v. Cavazos et al

Filing 10

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 6 Motion to Expedite Service and Motion for Leave to Correspond with Fellow Inmate signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/14/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXPEDITE SERVICE AND MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO CORRESPOND WITH
FELLOW INMATE
(Doc. 6.)

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:12-cv-01754-GSA-PC

WILLIE BOLDS,

vs.
J. CAVAZOS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND
Willie Bolds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18
19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

20

commencing this action on October 29, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On November 7, 2012, Plaintiff

21

consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other

22

parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.)

23

On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to expedite service in this

24

action. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff also requests leave of court to correspond with a fellow inmate who

25

is assisting him with litigation, in the event Plaintiff is transferred to another prison. (Id.)

26

II.

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SERVICE

27

The court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

28

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, such as the
1

1

instant action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). The court must

2

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

3

Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

4

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

5

' 1915A(b)(1),(2).

28 U.S.C.

6

With respect to service, the court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to

7

serve the complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it

8

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. In this action, the Court

9

screened Plaintiff=s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A, and issued an order on March

10

21, 2013, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 8.)

11

On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which now awaits the Court’s

12

requisite screening. (Doc. 9.) Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, it is not time for

13

service in this action.

14

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to expedite service or to expedite the

15

screening of his First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserts that “time is of the essence” in his

16

case, and delays will cause memories to fade and may cause evidence and documents to be lost.

17

Motion, Doc. 6 at 1. Plaintiff’s case is not unusual, and this argument could be made for any of

18

the thousands of civil cases now pending before the Court.

19

Complaint shall be screened, and service shall be initiated in this action as soon as possible

20

according to the Court’s schedule. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for expedited service shall be

21

denied.

22

III.

Plaintiff’s First Amended

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRESPOND WITH FELLOW INMATE

23

Inmates may only correspond with one another if they obtain written authorization from

24

the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 ' 3139 (2010). Further, the Court does

25

not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, and lacks

26

authority in this instance to order that Plaintiff be allowed to correspond with a fellow inmate at

27

another correctional institution. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103

28

S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church
2

1

and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles,

2

444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). AA federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has

3

personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not

4

attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.@ Zepeda v. United States

5

Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985).

6

Plaintiff requests leave of court to continue to correspond with a fellow inmate who is

7

assisting him with the litigation of this case, in the event that Plaintiff is transferred to another

8

prison facility. As discussed above, the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue the order

9

Plaintiff seeks. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request shall be denied. Plaintiff is advised to make a

10

request to prison officials for written authorization to continue his correspondence.

11

III.

CONCLUSION

12

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for expedited service is DENIED; and

14

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave of court to correspond with fellow inmate is

15

DENIED.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

20
21
22

May 14, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

23
24
25
26
27
28
3