Joseph v. Hawkins, et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/6/17 DENYING 28 Motion. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALONZO JOSEPH,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-0332 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DR. R. HAWKINS,,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims

18

that Dr. Hawkins was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs while plaintiff

19

was housed at Mule Creek State Prison in 2014. On December 27, 2016, while housed at High

20

Desert State Prison, plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to “re-issue a housing order due to

21

enmery [sic] restrictions in California State Prison, Sacramento.” (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff asked

22

to be housed in the Sacramento County Jail due to alleged enemy restrictions. Plaintiff provided

23

a list of non-confidential offender separation alerts, but did not identify the inmate on the list.

24

Plaintiff’s motion is deficient in several respects. First, plaintiff’s motion is not supported

25

with sufficient facts. Second, this court has not previously issued a housing order concerning any

26

enemy restrictions for plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide a copy of any prior housing order for the

27

court’s review. Third, plaintiff’s central file should contain a list of plaintiff’s known enemies.

28
1

1

Plaintiff did not indicate whether the enemy he is concerned about is listed on plaintiff’s list of

2

known enemies. Finally, in this action, no defendants are located at High Desert State Prison,

3

where plaintiff was housed when he submitted the motion, or at California State Prison,

4

Sacramento, where it appears he contends he has enemy restrictions. This court is unable to issue

5

an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio

6

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

7

For all of the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No.

8

28) is denied without prejudice.

9

Dated: January 6, 2017

10
11
12
/jose0332.den

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2