(PC) Price v. Sherman

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDMOND PAUL PRICE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00131-JLT-EPG (PC)

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COURT ORDER 14 ALVARADO, et al., DIRECTING THE NDOC TO STOP REQUIRING HIM TO SUBMIT HIS PAPERS 15 Defendants. TO INMATES A DAY BEFORE LEGAL COPIES ARE MADE BE DENIED

16 (ECF No. 110)

17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THRITY (30) DAYS 18

19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Edmond Paul Price is a Nevada state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff 22 filed a single page motion requesting a court order directing the Nevada Department of 23 Corrections (NDOC) to stop requiring him to submit his papers to inmates a day before legal copies are made. (ECF No. 110). Defendants have not filed any response to the motion, and the 24 time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 230(l) (providing 21 days to file any opposition to a 25 motion in a case involving a pro se prisoner). 26 Plaintiff asserts that the NDOC requires him “to submit his legal papers to an inmate that 27 will keep those papers over[]night and then that inmate will take the legal papers to the law 28 1 library where they will be gone over and upon approval, they will be copied.” (ECF No. 110). 2 “The following day the inmate will pick up Plaintiff’s legal papers and finally return them to 3 Plaintiff.” (Id.). He asks for an order stating “that Plaintiff’s legal papers are not to leave his 4 presence when copying, filing or mailing services are being provided.” Plaintiff provides no legal argument in support of his motion, but the Court construes this 5 filing as a motion made under the All Writs Act. 6 II. ANALYSIS 7 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in 8 aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons 10 who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to 11 frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and 12 encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United 13 States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote and citations omitted). 14 “Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non- 15 party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending 16 action.” Hammler v. Haas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48377, *3-4 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2019); see 17 also Mitchell v. Haviland, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109106, *5 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2015) (“Use of 18 the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants, 19 allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner’s ability to litigate his case”); Lopez v. Cook, 20 2014 WL 1488518, *4 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order under the All Writs Act 21 requiring prison officials to provide plaintiff, who was in the Segregated Housing Unit for non- 22 disciplinary reasons, with two contact visits with his counsel). However, “injunctive relief under 23 the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 24 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 25 The Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied because Plaintiff has failed to 26 show that prison officials are preventing him from effectively litigating this action. Specifically, 27 Plaintiff has failed to offer sufficient evidence that prison officials, through the use of inmates for 28 1 | copying services, are interfering with his ability to file documents in this case. Notably, in just the 2 | last approximately 60-day period, Plaintiff has made numerous filings. (ECF Nos. 106-110, 114, 3 | 117, 121). Moreover, at the current stage of this case, the parties are awaiting final adjudication of 4 | Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment and there are no indications that the delay 5 | from copying services will impact any court deadline. (See ECF No. 94). 6 In short, Plaintiff has not shown the presence of critical and exigent circumstances 7 justifying the sparing use of injunctive relief permitted under the All Writs Act.! 8 IW. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion requesting a court order directing the NDOC to stop requiring him to submit his papers to inmates a day before legal 8 copies are made (ECF No. 110) be denied. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 13 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 16 | within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 17 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 18 in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 19 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 > IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 | Dated: _March 20, 2024 [see ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 ' Nothing in this order prevents Plaintiff from filing administrative grievances or a separate case if he believes his constitutional rights have been violated by prison officials’ interference with his access to the 28 | Courts.