King v. Holland et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 42 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Denial of Request 39 for Order or Subpoena in Obtaining Affidavit Statement From Witness, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/8/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHAD KING, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:15-cv-01885-DAD-BAM Plaintiff, v. S. HOLLAND et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR ORDER OR SUBPOENA IN OBTAINING AFFIDAVIT STATEMENT FROM WITNESS (Doc. Nos. 39 & 42) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Rashad King is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 2, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued 21 findings and recommendations addressing plaintiff’s request for an order or subpoena, which the 22 magistrate judge construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 42.) Therein, the 23 magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion be denied, and encouraged plaintiff to avail 24 himself of the process for requesting communications between inmates housed in separate 25 facilities set forth in § 3139(b) of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. That process 26 gives a warden the authority to evaluate an inmate’s request, taking into consideration safety and 27 security concerns under the circumstances. (See id. at 2–3.) The findings and recommendations 28 were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 1 1 fourteen days after service. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on May 15, 2017. (Doc. 2 No. 46.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 5 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 6 by proper analysis. 7 In his objections, plaintiff contends that he has made numerous attempts to get a 8 correspondence approval, but has received no response. (See Doc. No. 46.) Plaintiff further 9 states that he is given “major hassles” from the counselor or prison officials, and his documents 10 are either deemed lost or disregarded. Thus, according to plaintiff, he has no way to demonstrate 11 or prove to the court that he has followed the prison procedures in requesting that he be allowed 12 to correspond with inmate Crawford. Plaintiff states an affidavit from inmate Crawford will 13 corroborate the allegations of his complaint and give him a better chance of prevailing on 14 summary judgment or at trial. Finally, plaintiff contends that he does not have time to use the 15 prison grievance system because that process is a lengthy one and does not a guarantee a result. 16 As an initial matter, the undersigned agrees with the assigned magistrate judge that this 17 court lacks the jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than the plaintiff and the defendants. 18 (See Doc. No. 42 at 2) (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 19 (1969). As such, the court cannot order the Warden M. E. Spearman to authorize plaintiff to 20 communicate with inmates incarcerated at other prisons as plaintiff requests. At most, the court 21 can seek the assistance of officials at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 22 if it were to find that plaintiff’s ability to litigate his claim was being hampered unnecessarily. 23 However, under the present circumstances of this case, the court declines to do so. Even if 24 plaintiff has adequately pursued the prison administrative procedures for seeking authorization to 25 communicate with inmates incarcerated at other prisons, he has not shown this court that any such 26 communications are necessary to prosecute this action. See, e.g., Bridges v. Hubbard, No. 2:09- 27 cv-00940-GEB-DAD, 2013 WL 1281781, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) (denying motion due to 28 failure to adequately demonstrate that any potential third-party inmate witnesses possessed 2 1 relevant evidence with regard to the case); Puckett v. Bailey, No. 1:10-cv-02145-LJO-GBC, 2012 2 WL 1196488, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) (denying plaintiff's motion to correspond with 3 inmate witnesses because he failed to show the prospective witnesses had relevant knowledge); 4 Tilei v. Wan, No. 1:06-cv-00776-OWW-GSA, 2011 WL 121552, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2011) 5 (same). Here, plaintiff has not informed the court as to what specific evidence inmate Crawford 6 will provide regarding this case. Moreover, plaintiff’s argument concerning the lengthy nature of 7 the prison grievance process is also unpersuasive. As a result, the undersigned finds no basis on 8 which to reject the findings and recommendations. 9 Accordingly, 10 1. The May 2, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 42) are adopted in full; and 11 2. Plaintiff’s request of order or subpoena in obtaining affidavit statement from witness 12 13 14 (Doc. No. 39), construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?