Todd v. Johnson et al

Filing 96

ORDER Denying 93 Motion for Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/12/15. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:12-cv-02083-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT ORDER v. (ECF No. 93) P. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants Doe, Harrington, 19 Johnson, Norton, and Weatherford on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect 20 claim. Defendants Harrington, Johnson, Norton and Weatherford have appeared in the 21 action. Defendant Doe has not been identified. 22 On April 16, 2015, the Court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on the issue 23 of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF No. 91.) On the same date, the Court 24 filed an order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to transport Plaintiff to the 25 evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 92.) 26 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 27, 2015 motion for a court order. Plaintiff asks 27 the Court to order the Warden to transport and return Plaintiff to California State Prison – 28 Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) on the same day as the evidentiary hearing, rather than 1 transferring him to another institution to await the hearing and his subsequent return to 2 CSP-Sac. Plaintiff particularly is concerned that he will be held at California State Prison 3 – Corcoran, where Defendants are employed and where the events at issue in this 4 action occurred. Plaintiff also states that his work assignment and educational and self- 5 help programs will be disrupted if he is transferred. 6 The relief Plaintiff seeks is essentially a request for injunctive relief. Outside of the 7 authority to order the Warden to produce Plaintiff pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, 8 the Court has no authority to order parties not before the Court to take action. Zepeda v. 9 United States Immigration & Naturalization Servs., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A 10 federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and 11 subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 12 persons not before the court.”). The Warden at CSP-Sac is not a party to this action. 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order is HEREBY DENIED. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2015 /s/ 17 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?