United States District Court, E.D. California
GARY G. HAMPTON, Plaintiff,
ALKIRE, et al., Defendants.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September
3, 2019, the undersigned issued an order screening
plaintiff’s complaint filed August 21, 2019, pursuant
to the mailbox rule. (ECF No. 6.) The undersigned found that
plaintiff stated potentially colorable claims for relief
against defendants Alkire and Hicks for jeopardizing
plaintiff’s safety by falsifying documents. The
undersigned dismissed the two remaining claims against
defendants Alkire and Hicks with leave to amend.
September 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a letter with the court
alleging that ever since he filed this lawsuit against
defendant Alkire, he has received unfair punishment, placed
in unsafe housing situations and been assaulted. (ECF No.
12.) Plaintiff allege that he is scared for his life to leave
his cell. (Id.)
September 18, 2019 letter, plaintiff alleges that he has been
found guilty of three rules violation reports despite a lack
of evidence. Plaintiff also alleges that in less than thirty
days, he has been forced to live with three different inmates
who threatened plaintiff’s life because plaintiff was
found guilty of a sex offense. Plaintiff identifies these
inmates by name. Plaintiff alleges that he advised officers
before moving in with these inmates that he feared for his
safety. Plaintiff was told that if he refused the move, he
would receive a rules violation report.
alleges that on September 13, 2019, in front of the A-Yard
captain’s hallway, an inmate began yelling confidential
information, apparently about plaintiff, at plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that only High Desert State Prison
(“HDSP”) officers should have known the
confidential information the inmate yelled at plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that this inmate then headbutted plaintiff,
spit in plaintiff’s face and assaulted plaintiff with
both hands. The inmate told plaintiff, “This is what
happens when you fuck with the wrong people!” Plaintiff
alleges that a HDSP Correctional Officer watched the inmate
assault plaintiff and did not hit his alarm.
alleges that he reported the assault to the Building 3 Floor
Officer, Correctional Officer Barrier, who called it in.
Plaintiff was ordered to report to the A-yard program office.
Before plaintiff reached the program office, the officer who
allegedly watched the assault stopped plaintiff and
“made it very clear” that if plaintiff snitched,
the next time it would be worse. Plaintiff alleges that out
of fear, plaintiff denied everything when he was questioned
about the assault. Plaintiff alleges that he should not have
had to snitch because the whole incident was caught on AVSS
camera footage. Plaintiff alleges that the inmate who
assaulted him was not charged with a rules violation.
defendants have been served in this action. Nonetheless,
where circumstances warrant, the court does have some
authority to intervene regarding conduct unrelated to the
complaint under The All Writs Act. That Act gives federal
courts the authority to issue “all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28
U.S.C. 1651(a). The United States Supreme Court has
authorized the use of the All Writs Act in appropriate
circumstances against persons who, “though not parties
to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a
position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or
the proper administration of justice.” United
States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). To obtain
an order under the All Writs Act, the requested order must be
“necessary.” This language requires that the
relief requested is not available through some alternative
means. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999).
complaints regarding being wrongly found guilty of rules
violations may be addressed through alternative means, such
as the prison grievance process. However, for the reasons
stated herein, the HDSP Warden is ordered to respond to
plaintiffs allegations regarding his personal safety made in
his September 18, 2019 letter.
alleges that prison officials housed him with inmates who
threatened his safety and allowed an inmate to assault him in
retaliation for filing this action. Plaintiffs claims that
prison officials were motivated by retaliation are not well
supported. However, the undersigned is concerned that the
court will lose jurisdiction of this action if plaintiff is
housed in conditions where his safety is jeopardized based on
improper housing assignments and assaults by other inmates,
as alleged in the September 19, 2019 letter. Accordingly, the
HDSP Warden is ordered to file a response to these claims
within twenty-one days of the date of this order. The HDSP
Warden is directed to specifically address whether plaintiffs
alleged September 13, 2019 assault was recorded by an AVSS
camera and also whether this footage included a correctional
officer watching the alleged assault.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, the HDSP
Warden shall file a response to plaintiffs September 18, 2019
letter, as discussed above;
Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order
and plaintiffs September 18, 2019 letter on Supervising
Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson and the HDSP Warden,