Crane v. Rodriguez et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/11/16 ORDERING that the stay of this action is LIFTED, and the Clerk is directed to re-open this action. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 64 , 66 , 68 ) are DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' 69 request for extension of time is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before 10/21/2016. (Kastilahn, A)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,
Case No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P
RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action was stayed pending
referral to the ADR pilot project, and set for settlement conference on September 22, 2016. Prior
to the settlement conference, plaintiff signed three motions for injunctive relief. First, plaintiff
alleged that he was deprived the opportunity to file a more complete settlement conference
statement because his property was packed for his transfer before the deadline expired. Second,
plaintiff argued he was at risk of not being transported to court for the settlement conference
because his insistence he needed to retain his property was going to be construed as a refusal to
transport. Third, plaintiff asked the court to order that he be transported to and from the court on
single cell status, that his cell at California State Prison, Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”), be locked while
he is out to court, and that following the settlement conference, he be returned forthwith to CSP-
LAC along with his legal materials.
This action was stayed on May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 53.) The undersigned ordered: “[e]xcept
as provided herein or by subsequent court order, no other pleadings or other documents may be
filed in this case during the stay of this action.” (Id.) In light of the stay, plaintiff’s motions
violated the court’s order.
Second, the record reflects that plaintiff submitted his settlement statement, was transported
for the settlement conference, and participated in the settlement conference. Thus, it appears his
claims are moot. Moreover, no defendants are located at CSP-LAC, where plaintiff was formerly
housed, or at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”), where plaintiff is currently
housed. This action proceeds against defendants employed at High Desert State Prison. Thus,
the pending motions seek injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants.
This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending
before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). The
undersigned further finds that requiring prison officials at CSP-LAC or CSP-SAC to respond to
plaintiff’s motions pursuant to the All Writs Act is not warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Therefore, plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief are denied without prejudice.
Finally, this action did not settle. Service of process was executed on all the remaining
defendants. (ECF No. 39.) Therefore, the stay is lifted, and counsel for defendants is directed to
file a responsive pleading. On October 3, 2016, defendants filed a request for extension of time
to file a responsive pleading. Good cause appearing, defendants’ request is granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The stay of this action is lifted, and the Clerk is directed to re-open this action;
2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 64, 66, 68) are denied without
3. Defendants’ request for extension of time (ECF No. 69) is granted; and
4. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before October 21, 2016.
Dated: October 11, 2016
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?