Norvell Andrew v. United States of America, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORVELL ANDREW, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01290-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE 13 v. AND RETURN PREVIOUSLY FORWARDED SERVICE DOCUMENTS 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 30-Day Deadline 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 16 DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN INK PEN TO DRAFT LEGAL 17 DOCUMENTS

18 14-Day Deadline

19 (Doc. 60)

20 Plaintiff Norvell Andrew is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 21 this civil rights action. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 On January 22, 2026, following screening of the operative third amended complaint, the 24 Court issued its Order Finding Service of Third Amended Complaint Appropriate and Forwarding 25 Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return Within Thirty Days. (Doc. 59.) 26 On March 3, 2026,1 Plaintiff filed a document titled “Time Extension/Request for Pen.” 27

1 1 (Doc. 60.)2 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 In addition to seeking additional time to return service documents, Plaintiff alleges she “is 4 currently in special housing unit due to again being forced to sign on protective custody.” (Doc. 5 60.) She states she is “not allowed to have ink pens in her possession,” and the “rubber pencil” 6 provided is “too weak to apply pressure to the USM forms.” (Id.) Plaintiff “petition[s] this court 7 to force USP Canaan staff to issue plaintiff an ink pen to draft legal documents with.” (Id.) 8 Motion for Extension of Time 9 First, although Plaintiff does not identify the additional length of time she seeks in order 10 to return the service documents previously provided, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an 11 additional 30 days from the date of this Order within which to do so. No further extensions of 12 time will be granted absent Plaintiff’s detailed showing of good cause. 13 Motion or Request for Ink Pen 14 Plaintiff’s request for an ink pen should be denied. The Court has no jurisdiction over 15 United States Penitentiary Canaan (USP Canaan) in Waymart, Pennsylvania, as neither that 16 institution nor its officials are before the Court.3 4 “A federal court may issue an injunction [only] 17 if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 18 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration 19 Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); see Brackett v. Anderson, No. 2:21-cv-02282-KJM- 20 JDP (PC), 2023 WL 6894748, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2023) (recommending plaintiff’s third 21 motion for injunctive relief seeking order that Butte County Jail officials provide him with ink 22 pens be denied for a lack of jurisdiction), adopted in full, 2024 WL 418710 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 23 2 That same date, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. That motion will be decided by the assigned district 24 judge in due course.

25 3 This action involves Plaintiff’s claims against officials at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. (See Doc. 54 [third amended complaint].) 26 4 The Court repeatedly has admonished Plaintiff that it cannot order officials at other federal facilities to take certain 27 actions because it lacks jurisdiction over prison officials at those facilities. (See, e.g., Doc. 28 at 3-4 [no jurisdiction over officials at USP Victorville], Doc. 36 at 3-4 [no jurisdiction over officials at USP Beaumont] & Doc. 42 at 3-4 1 2024); Felix v. Dougherty, No. 1:21-cv-01472-JLT-SKO, 2023 WL 4027100, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2 June 15, 2023) (recommending plaintiff’s motion seeking an order requiring jail officials to 3 provide him with a pen be denied, in part, for a lack of jurisdiction), adopted in full, 2023 WL 4 4424667 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2023). 5 Further, prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption 6 and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order 7 and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 8 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970)). Here, the Court accords deference to 9 prison officials at USP Canaan concerning its apparent policy to provide inmates in “special 10 housing” or “protective custody” with pencils rather than pens. 11 III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time 13 (Doc. 60) is GRANTED. Plaintiff SHALL return the previously provided service documents, 14 completed to the best of her ability, within 30 days of the date of service of this Order. Any 15 failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this Order will result in a recommendation to dismiss 16 this action for a failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 17 Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s request for an order directing 18 officials at the USP Canaan to provide her with an ink pen be DENIED for a lack of jurisdiction. 19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 20 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 21 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 22 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave 24 of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. 25 To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the 26 record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the 27 exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15- page limitation may be disregarded 1 | 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 2 | waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 | ITIS SOORDERED. * | Dated: _ March 5, 2026 | bo 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28