Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniel Manriquez v. Huchins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 18, 2011

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HUCHINS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CONTACT WITH INMATE WITNESSES (ECF No. 144)

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order permitting him to contact inmate witnesses. (ECF No. 144.)

Inmates may only correspond with one another if they obtain written authorization from the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139 (2010). Further, the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, and cannot order that Plaintiff be allowed to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006).

Since the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court can only make a request to prison officials and cannot order them to allow Plaintiff to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471; Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126. Plaintiff alleges that he has followed procedures and used the available resources at the prison to obtain authorization to contact his witnesses which has been granted, but he is still being denied communication with his witnesses. Plaintiff states that Inmates Torrez, Haro, Guerro, and James witnessed the use of excessive force and deliberate indifference and Inmates Acuna and Perez can testify to the decline in his health due to the alleged use of force. Based upon Plaintiff's offer of proof, the Court finds that inmates Acuna and Perez did not witness the incident alleged in the complaint and do not possess evidence relevant to this action. Therefore, Plaintiff's request to contact Inmates Acuna and Perez shall be denied.

As the Court lacks jurisdiction over prison officials in this action, Plaintiff's motion for a court order is denied. However the Court will attempt to facilitate limited written communication between Plaintiff and his witnesses. A letter will be issued requesting the institutions grant permission for communication between Plaintiff and inmates Jose Haro, CDC No. K-18074; M. Torres CDC No. P-98683; B. James, CDC No. K-14664 and R. Guerrero CDC No. H-38157.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an order permitting Plaintiff to have contact with inmate witnesses is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111018

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.