Solomon v. Felker et al

Filing 141

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 01/27/15 ordering within 10 days of the date of this order, the Warden of Corcoran shall file a status report addressing plaintiff's allegations regarding denial of access to his legal prope rty. The clerk of the court is directed to serve this order and a copy of plaintiff's motion for court order 140 on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson and the Warden of California State Prison-Corcoran, California State Prison Corcoran, PO Box 3476, Corcoran, CA 93212-3476. (cc: Monica Anderson, A.G.)(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCENT SOLOMON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 08-cv-2544 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

T. FELKER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a court order for the return

19

of his legal property. (ECF No. 140.) For the following reasons, the Warden of California State

20

Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”) is directed to respond to plaintiff’s motion.

21

On September 19, 2014, defendants filed a summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 134.)

22

On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for access to his legal property and for a ninety

23

day extension of time to file his opposition. (ECF No. 137.) In this motion, plaintiff alleged that

24

Corcoran officials took all of his legal property and refused to return it.

25

On November 21, 2014, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion for access to his legal

26

property. (ECF No. 138.) The undersigned found that the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s motion

27

did not support his claim that his legal property was confiscated and that prison officials refused

28

to return it. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s exhibits demonstrated that plaintiff was allowed to have the
1

1

amount of legal property in his cell that is permitted for inmates in administrative segregation.

2

(Id.) Plaintiff’s exhibits demonstrated that plaintiff could trade a box of legal property in his cell

3

for a box of legal property in storage. (Id.) In other words, procedures existed for plaintiff to

4

have access to his legal property that was not in his cell. (Id.) The November 21, 2014 order

5

granted plaintiff thirty days to file his opposition. (Id.)

6

Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file his opposition. Accordingly, on January 7,

7

2015, the undersigned ordered that this action would be dismissed if plaintiff failed to file his

8

opposition within thirty days. (ECF No. 139.)

9

On January 26, 2015, plaintiff filed the pending motion. (ECF No. 140.) Plaintiff alleges

10

that prison officials confiscated all of his legal property on October 8, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff

11

alleges that prison officials lied to the court when they stated that plaintiff had access to his legal

12

property, apparently referring to the previously filed exhibits. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that most of

13

his legal property is in a warehouse. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that prison officials will not give him

14

access to his legal property without a court order. (Id.)

15

No defendants are located at Corcoran. Usually persons or entities not parties to an action

16

are not subject to orders for injunctive relief. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395

17

U.S. 100 (1969). However, the fact that one is not a party does not automatically preclude the

18

court from acting. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), permits the court to issue writs

19

“necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of

20

law.” See generally S.E.C. v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1981); United

21

States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). This section does not grant the court

22

plenary power to act in any way it wishes; rather the All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the

23

exercise and preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d

24

1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979).

25

The court is concerned that it will lose jurisdiction of this action if plaintiff is unable to

26

prosecute his case because he is being denied access to his legal property. Pursuant to the All

27

Writs Act, the undersigned herein orders the Warden of Corcoran to file a status report addressing

28

plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of access to his legal property.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Within ten days of the date of this order, the Warden of Corcoran shall file a status

3

report addressing plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of access to his legal property;

4

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order and a copy of plaintiff’s motion

5

for court order (ECF No. 140) on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson and

6

the Warden of California State Prison-Corcoran, California State Prison-Corcoran, P.O. Box

7

3476, Corcoran, California, 93212-3476.

8

Dated: January 27, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
Sol2544.alw
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3