(PC) Hammler v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01890-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties, and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the findings in part, but declines to adopt the 2 recommendation. 3 Plaintiff moves the court to issue an order directing the CDCR to grant plaintiff access to 4 the global tel-link. Mot., ECF No. 43. Plaintiff explains he needs access in order to gather 5 documents relevant to this case. Hammler Decl. ¶¶ 5–6. The magistrate judge construed the 6 motion as a motion for preliminary injunction and recommended denying the motion because the 7 underlying litigation does not relate to plaintiff’s access to the global tel-link system. F.&R. at 2, 8 ECF No. 70. 9 As the magistrate judge notes, “[w]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims 10 not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.” Id. 11 (quoting Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 12 2015)). However, the magistrate judge did not consider whether plaintiff is entitled to relief 13 under the All Writs Act. 14 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs 15 necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 16 principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. “The power conferred by the Act extends, under 17 appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in 18 wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper 19 administration of justice.” United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). “Use 20 of the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants, 21 allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner’s ability to litigate his case.” Aldrich v. 22 Romo, 493 F. Supp. 3d 853, 856 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (citations omitted) (collecting cases). 23 Accordingly, this matter is referred back to the magistrate judge to consider whether plaintiff is 24 entitled to the relief he seeks under the All Writs Act. See, e.g., Lopez v. Cook, No. 03-1605, 25 2014 WL 1488518, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (directing the prison to provide plaintiff with 26 reasonably long contact visits with counsel under the All Writs Act); Hammler v. Gooch, 27 No. 19-00653, 2023 WL 3222652, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2023), report and recommendation 28 ///// 1 || adopted, No. 19-00653, 2023 WL 4088645 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023) (considering whether 2 || defendant is entitled to relief under the All Writs Act). 3 So ORDERED. 4 | DATED: August 16, 2024. 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28