The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Oswald Parada United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
On March 11, 2010, John Chester Riblet ("Defendant"), filed a Motion for Relief from Conditions of Confinement. (Dkt. No. 47.) On April 27, 2010, the United States of America ("Plaintiff") filed an Opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 49.) On May 4, 2011, Defendant filed a Reply to the Opposition. (Dkt. No. 50.) On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Supplement to the Opposition. (Dkt. No. 51.) On May 11, 2011, the matter came on for hearing.
Having considered the aforementioned pleadings and the arguments of counsel, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Condition of Confinement, as the Court finds it does not have the authority to enter such an order. See Jett v. Castaneda, 578 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1978) ("We must hold on this record, however, that the district court, despite its commendable concern for the rights of a person whose condition made him vulnerable to possible overreaching by the government, had no jurisdiction to enter its discovery orders. The commission of a judge is not a general assignment to go about doing good. There is work enough for courts to do, and time enough for a judge to act when a case is properly brought before the court.") However, the Court strongly recommends that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") allow Defendant to keep a laptop computer in his cell for the purpose of reviewing the voluminous discovery in his case, pending the U.S. Department of Justice's ("DOJ's") determination on whether to seek the death penalty against him. If such laptop access is allowed by the BOP, the laptop shall be loaded with appropriate software to allow Defendant to access the files, the modem in the laptop shall be removed to prevent internet access, and Defendant shall not be provided with access to a printer in order to avoid dissemination of any discovery materials, protected or otherwise.
This minute order shall also advise the Warden and other custodial officials that because Defendant is currently under investigation for a federal capital offense that occurred within the Central District of California, and counsel has been appointed to represent him, Defendant needs access to, among other things, attorney visits, all legal documents, copying services, writing materials, the prison law library, as permitted by prison rules, in order to effectively proceed in this matter. Thus, the Court strongly recommends that the BOP provide him with additional time in order to do so.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...