Washington v. Essex et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/19/13 denying 15 Motion for a court order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACYE WASHINGTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 2:12-cv-3054 DAD P

C. ESSEX et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed

18

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

19

intervention.

20

In his motion, plaintiff alleges that prison officials recently moved him to the central

21

treatment center for mental observation. Plaintiff further alleges that he has since been returned

22

to his cell, but prison officials who inventoried his personal property now do not know where it is.

23

Plaintiff requests a court order requiring the warden to show cause as to why plaintiff has not

24

received his personal property and why the law library has been inaccessible to him of late.

25

Plaintiff is advised that this court is unable to issue an order against any individual or

26

entity who is not a party to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

27

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d

28

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction
1

1

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the

2

rights of persons not before the court.”). If plaintiff is still having difficulty obtaining the return

3

of his property, he should file an administrative grievance at his institution of incarceration. In

4

California, prisoners may appeal “any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the

5

department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material adverse

6

effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.1(a). Finally,

7

the court notes that the United States Marshal is in the process of effecting service on the

8

defendants. As such, until service is accomplished no action is required of plaintiff at this time.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a court order (Doc.

10

No. 15) is denied.

11

Dated: November 19, 2013

12
13
14

DAD:9
wash3054.prop

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2