Mitchell v. Davey, et al.

Filing 169

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 156 Motion for an Order under the All Writs Act be Denied without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/08/2020. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due within Twenty-One Days. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNDER THE
ALL WRITS ACT BE DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG (PC)

JOHN E. MITCHELL,

v.
CRM M.S. ROBICHEAUX,

15

Defendant.

(ECF NO. 156)

16

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE DAYS

17
18
19

John E. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

20
21

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order under the All Writs Act. (ECF No.

22
23
24

156). For the reasons described below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.
I.

PLANITIFF’S MOTION

25

Plaintiff alleges that he cannot meet court ordered deadlines because correctional officers

26

are impeding his ability to litigate. Plaintiff alleges that he has been beaten twice in the last year,

27

that he does not have access to his legal property, and that he does not have access to the law

28

library or forms to use to litigate with. Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order “that it deems
1

1
2

appropriate.”
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in

3
4

aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons

6

who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to

7

frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and

8

encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United

9

States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote and citations omitted).
“Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non-

10
11

party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending

12

action.” Hammler v. Haas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48377, *3-4 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2019). See

13

also Mitchell v. Haviland, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109106, *5 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2015) (“Use of

14

the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants,

15

allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner's ability to litigate his case”); Lopez v. Cook,

16

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52198, 2014 WL 1488518 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order

17

under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to provide Plaintiff, who was in the Segregated

18

Housing Unit for non-disciplinary reasons, with two contact visits with his counsel). However,

19

“injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and

20

exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v.

21

Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

22

III.

23

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s motion will be denied, without prejudice. “[I]njunctive relief under the All

24

Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,” Brown,

25

533 U.S. at 1303 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and such circumstances do not

26

exist here at the present time.

27
28

Plaintiff alleges that he does not have access to the law library. However, there is an
ongoing pandemic, movement has been limited at many prisons, and many inmates have limited
2

1

access to the law library. The Court will not recommend granting Plaintiff special access to the

2

law library because of his ongoing case.
As to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding lack of access to his legal property, Plaintiff appears

3
4

to allege that he does not have access to his property because he was placed in administrative

5

segregation, and then transferred at least twice. As it appears that Plaintiff does not have access

6

to his legal property due to transfers, there does not appear to be a need for the Court to intervene

7

at this time.

8
9

Moreover, the only pending deadlines in this case relate to the upcoming settlement
conference, which is set for September 9, 2020 (ECF No. 168). Thus, it does not appear that

10

Plaintiff has an urgent need to access his legal property or to visit the law library at this time. If

11

Plaintiff needs an extension of any deadline due to a lack of access to his legal property or the law

12

library, he should file a motion for an extension of time.

13
14

The Court notes that, if the case proceeds to trial and Plaintiff still does not have access to
the law library or his legal property, Plaintiff may renew this motion.
As to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding beatings, there is no indication that the alleged

15
16

beatings have any relationship to this case. If Plaintiff believes his civil rights have been violated

17

he should file a separate action.

18

IV.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an

19
20

RECOMMENDATION

order under the All Writs Act be DENIED without prejudice.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one

23

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

24

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

25

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed

26

within seven days after service of the objections.

27

\\\

28

\\\
3

1

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result

2

in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

3

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 8, 2020

/s/
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
4