Mitchell v. Schwartzenegger et al
Filing
148
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/6/14 ORDERING that plaintiffs motions (ECF Nos. 143 , 145 ) are denied without prejudice.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN MITCHELL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:09-cv-3012 JAM KJN P
v.
ORDER
J. HAVILAND, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff has filed two motions
17
18
requesting a court order requiring the Warden at the California Substance Abuse Treatment
19
Facility at Corcoran (“SATF”) to have “R&R” ship plaintiff’s personal property forthwith to
20
plaintiff at Folsom Prison where he is being confined by the court’s order to testify in the John
21
Draper v. D. Rosario case. (ECF Nos. 143; 145 at 1.)
Court records indicate that on April 7, 2014, U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan
22
23
issued an order and writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for plaintiff to be produced as a
24
witness for trial in Draper v. Rosario, Case No. 10-cv-0032 KJM EFB P. Plaintiff is advised that
25
if he needs his legal materials in order to assist his testimony as a witness in Draper, plaintiff must
26
file a request in that case. Court records reflect that jury trial in Draper was recently reset to June
27
16, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Id. (ECF No. 192).
28
////
1
1
This court is without jurisdiction to issue an order to prison officials at SATF. The instant
2
action is proceeding as to defendants employed at California State Prison, Solano, and plaintiff is
3
presently housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. Thus, plaintiff’s motions are denied
4
without prejudice.
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 143, 145) are denied
6
without prejudice.
7
Dated: May 6, 2014
8
9
/mitc3012.mat
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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?