IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 23, 2009
REX CHAPPELL, PLAINTIFF,
D. MCCARGAR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a motion in which he requests three court rulings. Trial is scheduled to commence on October 6, 2009 and plaintiff asserts he is about to be transferred to California State Prison Sacramento (CSPS) for the duration of trial. Plaintiff asks that the court enter three orders related to plaintiff's transfer.
First, Plaintiff asks the court to issue an order that plaintiff be housed in general population at CSPS. He claims he has been housed at CSPS twice before while participating in trials and both times he was placed in segregated housing. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff claims that while in segregated housing, he does not earn as much good conduct sentence credit as he does in general population, and his conditions of confinement are more restrictive. But, Plaintiff fails to point to anything indicating the court has the authority to enter the order he requests. While the court has authority under the "All Writs Act," 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enter orders "in aid of [the court's] jurisdiction," Plaintiff's request concerns conditions of confinement not meaningfully related to trial or any other aspect of Plaintiff's pursuit of the claims remaining in this action. Therefore, the request will be denied.
Second, Plaintiff asks that "the court issue an order to (Warden) M. McDonald of High Desert State Prison, to allow Plaintiff to carry on the transportation bus all documents and materials necessary for this as well as legal book's, and to go into his cell with these book's and materials when Plaintiff arrive's at CSP Sacramento-IV-FOL." Mot at 3. However, Plaintiff has not presented a need for such an order. Plaintiff presents nothing indicating he will be denied access to reference materials or documents relevant to this case to the extent that it will negatively impact his ability to be adequately prepared for trial. Therefore this request will also be denied.
Finally, Plaintiff asks that the court order that Plaintiff be permitted to bring an electric shaver, toothpaste, deodorant, a comb and Muslim prayer oil with him to CSPS. Assuming arguendo that the court has the authority to issue the order Plaintiff requests, Plaintiff again fails to point to any need for such an order since he points to nothing suggesting he will not be permitted to take the items with him to CSPS.
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.