Trujillo v. Jacquez et al

Filing 109

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTION, ORDER REFERRING MATTER to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for Report and Recommendation, ORDER REFERRING MOTION: for and Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff should not be allowed to obtain a declaration from inmate McCoy.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/29/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

No. C 10-5183 YGR (PR)

MARIO TRUJILLO,

4

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S
PENDING MOTION; REFERRING
MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
AND SETTING TELEPHONIC
HEARING BEFORE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Plaintiff,

5
6
7

vs.
FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

8

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion entitled, "Motion Requesting a Court Order for One
Time Legal Correspondence Between Inmates" (Docket No. 85). Plaintiff specifically requests the
Court to order prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP") to allow him "one time legal
correspondence with inmate McCoy, CDC # T-69025, to attempt to obtain a declaration from this
inmate who is a witness to some or all of the Plaintiff's claims in this here action." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1.)
First, Plaintiff has not shown that the named Defendants have played any role in the denial of his
correspondence with inmate McCoy. Second, there is no legal authority or factual basis for the
Court to order prison officials at PBSP to allow Plaintiff to engage in the requested correspondence.
Indeed, federal courts have been cautioned to defer to prison officials' determinations about matters
concerning the administration of a prison. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to correspond (Docket No. 85) is DENIED. Plaintiff and the
Deputy Attorney General representing Defendants in this action are encouraged to work out an
arrangement to enable Plaintiff to obtain the materials he needs from inmate McCoy, to the extent
such communications with other prisoners do not interfere with legitimate penological concerns at
the prison.
IT ALSO IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is referred to Magistrate
Judge Nandor Vadas for a Report and Recommendation for an Order to Show Cause as to why
Plaintiff should not be allowed to obtain a declaration from inmate McCoy. A telephonic hearing
before Magistrate Judge Vadas will be held on this matter on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

1

The Deputy Attorney General will initiate the conference call and have Plaintiff connected on the

2

telephone call before connecting the conference call. The Deputy Attorney General should call the

3

courtroom deputy at [phone] in advance to obtain the call-in telephone number. Within ten

4

(10) days after the conclusion of the telephonic hearing, Magistrate Judge Vadas shall file with the

5

Court his Report and Recommendation on the aforementioned matter.

6

The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Order and Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting

7

a Court Order for One Time Legal Correspondence Between Inmates" (Docket No. 85) to Magistrate

8

Judge Vadas.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

This Order terminates Docket No. 85.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
DATED:

March 29, 2013

12

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.10\Trujillo5183.denyPENDmot&refVADAS.wpd

2