Ramon Arceo v. Gonzales et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/4/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAMON ARCEO

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-2083-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COURT ORDER
(ECF No. 24)

J. GONZALES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) This action

19

proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and California state law

20

assault and battery claims against Defendants Receo, Souvannkaham, and Gonzales.

21

(ECF No. 10.)

22

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 17, 2014, motion for a court order

23

allowing him to interview, write or call three inmates for the purpose of obtaining

24

affidavits and the inmates’ agreement to testify at trial. (ECF No. 24.) Defendants have

25

not opposed the motion and the time for doing so has passed. The matter is deemed

26

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

27
28

California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139 governs correspondence between
inmates, parolees, and probationers. It provides in part:

1

Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the
Warden/Regional
Parole
Administrator
or
their
designee/assigned probation officer, person in charge of the
County Jail and/or other State Correctional Systems, at a
level not less than Correctional Captain/Facility Captain or
Parole Agent III, to correspond with any of the following:

2
3
4

(1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state
or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency.

5
6

Plaintiff does not state whether he has sought written authorization from the

7

appropriate prison officials to correspond with other inmates. Since the Court cannot find

8

that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to obtain the desired communications without

9

court action, it must deny his motion without prejudice.

10

If Plaintiff attempts to correspond with his potential witnesses by following the

11

proper procedures and is denied access or is otherwise unable to effectively

12

communicate with his witnesses, Plaintiff may renew his motion. However, Plaintiff will

13

need to describe his attempts to engage in the process described above and to explain

14

why the communication with each witness is relevant to this cause of action.

15
16

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order allowing him to
communicate with other inmates (ECF No. 24) is HEREBY DENIED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 4, 2014

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2