West v. Dizon

Filing 105

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/09/14 ordering plaintiff's motion to amend judgment 75 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motions for extensions of time 97 , 100 , and 102 are denied as moot. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MACK WEST, Jr., 12 No. 2:12-cv-1293 MCE DAD P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 NOEL DIZON, 15 ORDER Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for alleged civil rights 18 violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2014, the court denied plaintiff’s 19 renewed requests for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum, which plaintiff argued were 20 necessary to allow him to communicate with other state prison inmates who he believes can 21 provide testimony in support of his claims against the defendant. (Dkt. No. 66.) The court also 22 denied any request by plaintiff to order the California Department of Corrections and 23 Rehabilitation (CDCR) to facilitate communication between plaintiff and other state prison 24 inmates who plaintiff claims are potential witnesses in this civil action. (Id.) Plaintiff now has 25 moved the court to amend its decision denying those requests. He argues that the defendant and 26 defendant’s counsel made material misrepresentations in opposing his efforts to contact other 27 inmates for purposes of this litigation and that those alleged misrepresentations constitute new 28 evidence justifying reversal of the court’s decision. See Motion to Amend the Judgment (Doc. 1 1 No. 75). Defendant has filed a timely opposition. (Doc. No. 81.) 2 On April 18, 2014, the defendant filed a notice that he was withdrawing his opposition to 3 plaintiff’s motion, stating that “in light of further investigation and review by several prisons, 4 [defendant] no longer opposes Plaintiff’s request to correspond with particular inmates provided 5 that standard security precautions – consistent with state regulations – are followed[.]” (Notice of 6 Withdrawal (Doc. No. 99) at 1.) Defendant represents that “the Litigation Coordinators at the 7 prisons where Plaintiff and the inmates are housed have reviewed inmates’ central files and 8 determined there are no obvious safety or security concerns in allowing Plaintiff to correspond 9 with [other inmates with CDCR].” (Id. at 2.) 10 Before the defendant filed the notice of April 18, plaintiff tried (and tried) to obtain this 11 court’s aid in contacting other inmates because, according to him, prison officials unjustifiably 12 obstructed his ability to contact them himself. Having now heard from the defendant that the 13 obstruction has been removed, the court finds no action on its prior decisions is necessary.1 The 14 motion to amend the court’s previous decision in light of alleged “new evidence” has been 15 rendered moot. Based on defense counsel’s representations, the court anticipates that plaintiff 16 will now be allowed to communicate with the inmates he believes can provide evidence with 17 respect to his claims in this action. 18 ///// 19 ///// 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s notice that defendant no longer opposes plaintiff’s corresponding with other inmates. That response concludes with new demands for injunctive relief, including use of the prison phone to contact potential witnesses. (Doc. No. 104 at 5.) Plaintiff’s history as a litigant in this case demonstrates he is aware that he must seek such relief through a formal motion, not by appending new demands at the end of a response. Insofar as plaintiff has not filed a separate motion for any sort of relief in the four months since his immediate response to defendant allowing the access that he originally wanted, the court has no reason to construe plaintiff’s latest “Prayer for Relief” or any other part of his response as a separate motion that requires resolution. 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment (Doc. No. 75) is denied as moot. 3 2. Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time (Doc. Nos. 97, 100, and 102) are denied as 4 moot. 5 Dated: September 9, 2014 6 7 8 9 10 hm west1293.ord 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?