United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed numerous
motions which are addressed below.
case was previously scheduled for trial on April 1, 2019. ECF
No. 106. In anticipation of that trial date, plaintiff filed
numerous motions, including “Motion for Order in re
Ability to Follow Pretrial Order, ” “Motion for
Order to Enable Plaintiff to Submit Exhibits as Order
Directs, ” and “Motion for Order to Enable
Plaintiff to Procure Street Cloth[e]s for Trial.” ECF
Nos. 119, 121, 140. The trial date, however, was subsequently
continued to January 13, 2020. ECF No. 134. The
aforementioned motions, therefore, are denied without
prejudice as moot.
previously sought preliminary injunctive relief and/or relief
under the All Writs Act in this case (ECF No. 105, 108, 112,
117). The court found that plaintiff was not entitled to
injunctive relief but ordered defendant to file a
supplemental brief addressing the applicability of the All
Writs Act to plaintiff's concerns regarding access to his
legal property. ECF No. 120. On February 19, 2019, defendant
filed a supplemental brief as ordered. ECF No. 131. On
February 26, 2019, the trial date was continued from April 1,
2019 to January 13, 2020. ECF No. 134. Because the trial was
postponed by over nine months, the court concluded,
independent of defendant's supplemental brief, that
plaintiff was not entitled to relief by way of the All Writs
Act. See ECF No. 147 (“Plaintiff may make use
of the prison's internal administrative grievance process
to resolve his requests concerning access to his legal
property.”). Meanwhile, plaintiff filed a “Motion
for Extension of Time” to respond to defendant's
supplemental brief (ECF No. 138) followed by a “Motion
for Ruling” on that request (ECF No. 151) and a
supportive declaration (ECF No. 145). Because the court did
not order plaintiff to respond to defendant's
supplemental brief, there was no deadline to extend.
Therefore, plaintiff's request for an extension of time
(ECF No. 138) is denied and the Clerk of the Court shall
terminate ECF No. 151 (the Motion for Ruling).
in response to defendant's supplemental brief, plaintiff
filed a “Motion for Formal Hearing in re Sanctions and
Declaration” (ECF No. 137) and a “Motion for
Sanctions and for Formal Hearing” (ECF No. 139). In
these requests, plaintiff argues that defense counsel
submitted false declarations with the supplemental brief.
Specifically, plaintiff speculates that defense counsel may
have “encouraged” correctional lieutenant
Randolph to perjure himself “to affect the
outcome” of this case. ECF No. 139 at 3. Plaintiff
requests the opportunity to present evidence at a hearing
showing that the declaration is false. Id. He also
requests that defense counsel be sanctioned. Id. at
4. Plaintiff's accusations against defense counsel are
entirely speculative. Accordingly, the motions for sanctions
and a hearing (ECF Nos. 137 & 139) are denied.
the court turns to plaintiff's two “Motions for
Orders.” ECF Nos. 144 & 148. In the March 25, 2019
“Motion for Order, ” plaintiff renews his request
for the court to grant him relief pursuant to the All Writs
Act. ECF No. 144. He claims he was denied receipt of a
package containing various supplies he needs for trial. He
argues that a court order is his only available relief
because his use of the prison's grievance process has
been placed on restriction. Id. at 10- 12.
Nevertheless, trial is still another six months away.
Plaintiff has ample time to use the prison's internal
procedures to prepare for and obtain what he needs for trial.
At this time, a court order is not “necessary”
for the proper administration of justice, as required by the
All Writs Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). In the
April 8, 2019 “Motion for Order, ” plaintiff
seeks a court order directing the warden to reverse a finding
of guilt on a rule violation report. ECF No. 148. Such relief
is not within the scope of this action, in which plaintiff
seeks damages for an alleged use of excessive force.
See ECF No. 106 (Pretrial Order). Plaintiff may use
the prison's internal administrative processes or file a
separate civil action to obtain relief on the unrelated
matter he raises. For these reasons, plaintiff's
“Motions for Orders, ” which essentially seek
injunctive relief, must be denied.
it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's “Motion for Order in re Ability to
Follow Pretrial Order, ” “Motion for Order to
Enable Plaintiff to Submit Exhibits as Order Directs, ”
and “Motion for Order to Enable Plaintiff to Procure
Street Cloth[e]s for Trial, ” (ECF Nos. 119, 121, 140)
are denied without prejudice as moot.
2. Plaintiff's “Motion for Extension of Time”
to respond to defendant's supplemental brief (ECF No.
138) is denied and the Clerk of the Court shall terminate ECF
No. 151 (“Motion for Ruling”).
3. Plaintiff's “Motion for Formal Hearing in re
Sanctions and Declaration” (ECF No. 137) and
“Motion for Sanctions and for Formal Hearing”
(ECF No. 139) are denied.
it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's “Motions for
Order” (ECF Nos. 144 & 148) be denied without
findings and recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to
file objections within the specified time may waive the right