Trotter v. Pfeiffer

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/16/19. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES TROTTER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:18-cv-00259-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF

v.
(ECF No. 32)
WARDEN PFEIFFER,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff James Trotter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief, filed on May 10, 2019. (ECF

20

No. 32.) Initially, Plaintiff asserts that he feels held back by an illegal case that is not his, he has

21

“been down” 29 years, and that, in Case No. B081130, he was never given a trial in violation of

22

the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, it has long been established that state

23

prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of their confinement in a section 1983 action, and

24

that their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005).

25

Second, Plaintiff asserts that, since the ruling issued in Coleman v. Newsom, Case No.

26

2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB, is not being followed, Folsom State Prison is so overcrowded that

27

prisoners cannot get program yard, showers, dayroom, library, religious services, and single-cell

28

housing. However, Plaintiff cannot enforce any of the court orders issued in Coleman in this
1

1

action. Instead, if Plaintiff wants to enforce a court order issued in Coleman, Plaintiff needs to

2

file a motion to enforce a court order in the Coleman action itself. Hook v. Ariz. Dept. of Corr.,

3

972 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its

4

judgments, including consent decrees.”); see also Skelly v. Dockweiler, 75 F. Supp. 11, 17 (S.D.

5

Cal. 1947) (noting that a court may choose not to exercise its jurisdiction when another court

6

having jurisdiction over the same matter has entertained it and can achieve the result sought to be

7

achieved here).

8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief, (ECF No. 32), is HEREBY DENIED.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 16, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2