Pierce v. Hawks et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/22/2013 ORDERING that plaintiff's 55 objections to this court's 4/19/13 order is CONSTRUED as a request for reconsideration by this court of that order and, so construed, is DENIED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

AARON JAMES PIERCE,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-3392 MCE DAD P

vs.
G. TURNER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

On May 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to this court’s

17

April 19, 2013 order denying his February 19, 2013 motion for a court order requiring officials at

18

the Ventura County Jail to provide him with photocopies of documents he has previously filed in

19

this action. The court construes this document as a request for reconsideration by this court of

20

that order.

21

The defendants in this action are all employed by the California Department of

22

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California.

23

None of the defendants in this action are employees of the Ventura County Jail. As a general

24

rule, the court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending

25

before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Moreover, in his

26

request for reconsideration, plaintiff states, inter alia, that he has filed in state court a petition for
1

1

writ of mandate concerning his lost property by which he apparently seeks the same relief.

2

Because the relief plaintiff seeks by his February 19, 2013 motion is not available from the

3

defendants in this action, and because he is pursuing a remedy in state court, the court declines to

4

reconsider its prior order denying plaintiff’s February 19, 2013 motion.

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 2,

6

2013 objections to this court’s April 19, 2013 order is construed as a request for reconsideration

7

by this court of that order and, so construed, is denied.

8

DATED: May 22, 2013.

9
10
11
12
13
14

DAD:12
pier11cv3392.850

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2