Consiglio v. Brown et al

Filing 65

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/24/19. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SAM CONSIGLIO, JR.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01268-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(ECF No. 64)

18

Plaintiff Sam Consiglio, Jr., is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim

20

against Defendants Ahlin and Price, in their official capacities, that a ban on certain electronic

21

devices at CSH pursuant to 9 C.C.R. § 891 and 9 C.C.R. § 4350 amounts to punishment in

22

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

23

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

24

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, filed on

25

January 2, 2019. (ECF No. 64.) No response to the motion was filed, and the matter is deemed

26

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

27

Plaintiff states that a defendant in this matter has been emotionally abusing him for years,

28

and that staff was ordered to confiscate his property. Specifically, a small fan was confiscated

1

1

from him and not returned, and he requires the fan for his heart condition.

2

He seeks an

evidentiary hearing.

3

The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in

4

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed.

5

2d 1 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010).

6

jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this

7

action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

The Court’s

8

There is no pending motion in this case for which a hearing is required, and the issue of

9

Plaintiff’s fan is not related to the claim being pursued in this matter. Thus, the Court does not

10

find it appropriate to hold any evidentiary hearing, and Plaintiff’s request will be denied. To the

11

extent that Plaintiff is facing health issues, he is encouraged to contact his health care providers

12

for assistance.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, filed on January 2, 2019 (ECF

13
14

No. 64), is HEREBY DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

January 24, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2