(PC) Dalke v. King et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for access to witness information 68 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/18/2021. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA JASON DALKE, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. KING CLARK, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00534-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO WITNESS INFORMATION (ECF No. 68) Plaintiff Joshua Jason Dalke is 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 access to witness information, filed February 17, 2021. California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139 governs correspondence between inmates, parolees, and probationers. It provides in part: (a) Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the Warden/ Regional Parole Administrator or their designee/assigned probation officer, person in charge of the County Jail and/or other State Correctional Systems, at a level not less than Correctional Captain/Facility Captain or Parole Agent III, to correspond with any of the following: (1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency. 27 28 (2) Persons committed to any county, state or federal program as a civil addict. 1 (3) Persons on parole or civil addict outpatient status under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency. 1 2 (4) Persons on probation. 3 4 Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15, § 3139. As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to identify why he needs communication with certain inmate 5 6 witnesses is necessary at this time, as the case is not set for trial and discovery just opened. In 7 addition, Plaintiff has not indicated whether he has availed himself, or attempted to avail himself, of 8 the process provided by the California Code of Regulations to obtain approval to correspond with his 9 potential third-party inmate witness. See Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15, § 3139(b) (“Inmates may initiate 10 requests to correspond with the above by contacting their Correctional Counselor I (CCI).”) However, 11 even if Plaintiff has adequately pursued the prison administrative procedures for authorization to 12 communicate with inmates at other prisons he has not shown this court that any such communications 13 are necessary to prosecute this action. See Puckett v. Bailey, No. 1:10–cv–2145 LJO GBC (PC), 2012 14 WL 1196488, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) (denying plaintiff's motion to correspond with inmate 15 witnesses because he failed to show the prospective witnesses had relevant knowledge); Tilei v. Wan, 16 No. 1:06–cv–0776 OWW GSA, 2011 WL 121552, at *7 (E.D.Cal. Jan.13, 2011) (same). Moreover, 17 Plaintiff is advised cautioned that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other 18 than plaintiff and defendants. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 19 (1969). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to access witness information is denied. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 February 18, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?