Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 93

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 91 Motion for Leave to Correspond with another Inmate signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/18/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISAAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO CORRESPOND WITH
ANOTHER INMATE
(ECF No. 91.)

BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Isaac Da’bour Dawson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

22

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds

23

with Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on December 14, 2015, against defendants Correctional

24

Officer (C/O) Johnson, C/O Guzman, Sergeant Gonzales, and C/O Sheldon (“Defendants”), on

25

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable unclothed body searches. (ECF No. 1.)

26

On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to correspond with another

27

inmate, Jessie Williams. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiff seeks assistance from inmate Williams in

28

litigating this case.
1

1

II.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRESPOND WITH ANOTHER INMATE

2

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

3

the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 ' 3139. Correspondence by inmates

4

between institutions is connected to legitimate security concerns, such as the possibility of

5

communication of escape plans, plans to arrange violent acts, and improper correspondence

6

between gang members. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2263, 96 L.Ed.2d

7

64 (1987). Regulations of mail may be imposed barring communication with inmates at other

8

penal facilities, to protect the institutional order and security of the facility where the regulation

9

does not deprive prisoners of all means of expression. Id. at 92. The Court recognizes that the

10

judgment of corrections officials with respect to correspondence between prison institutions is

11

“a judgment ‘peculiarly within [their] province and professional expertise,’ [and] should not be

12

lightly set aside by the courts.” Id. at 92–93 (quoting Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94

13

S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974).

14

Further, the court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than

15

Plaintiff and Defendants, and cannot order that Plaintiff be allowed to correspond with other

16

inmates. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983);

17

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S.

18

464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126

19

(9th Cir. 2006). “[A] federal court may ... not attempt to determine the rights of persons not

20

before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir.

21

1985).

22

Plaintiff does not say whether inmate Williams is incarcerated at the same facility as

23

Plaintiff. Nonetheless, to obtain permission to correspond with another inmate, Plaintiff must

24

follow the policies and procedures in place at the facility where Plaintiff is currently housed.

25

Inmates in California state prisons may initiate requests to correspond with other inmates by

26

contacting their Correctional Counselor. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3139(b). Plaintiff has not

27

indicated that he has attempted to use this process and been denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

28

motion shall be denied.
2

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave

to correspond with another inmate, filed on October 17, 2018, is DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 18, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3