Opinion
3:23-cv-01423-BAS-AHG
08-01-2024
JOSEPH WARD, Plaintiff, v. E. PASCUAL, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER REQUIRING CDCR TO RETURN RECORDS, DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS [ECF NO. 27]
HONORABLE ALLISON H. GODDARD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Pascual violated his rights under the First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment. ECF Nos. 9, 10. On March 25, 2024, the Court found that some of Plaintiff's claims survived the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and directed the case to proceed against Defendant Pascual. ECF No. 10 at 10-11. The Court then ordered the following:
2. [The Court] directs the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) for Defendant Pascual and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of the Second Amended Complaint and summons for use in serving Defendant. Upon receipt of this “In Forma Pauperis Package,” Plaintiff must complete the USM Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where Defendant may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1(c), and return the forms to the United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying the In Forma Pauperis Package.
3. [The Court] orders the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint and summons upon Defendant Pascual as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. Costs of service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3).Id. at 11 (emphasis omitted). On June 10, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to file a Third Amended Complaint, and sua sponte extended the time for Plaintiff to serve his operative Second Amended Complaint until July 23, 2024. ECF No. 18 at 4. The Court again ordered the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 and certified copies of the complaint and summons, explaining the procedure identically to the Court's prior order. Id.
On July 17, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension to serve Defendant Pascual-until August 30, 2024-and explained: “Since Plaintiff notified the Court that he is in a crisis bed without access to his legal documents, the Court will, one more time, direct the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) for Defendant Pascual and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of the Second Amended Complaint and summons for use in serving Defendant.” ECF No. 23 at 4 (emphasis omitted). The Court then explained the service procedure identically to the Court's prior orders. Id.
On July 16, 2024, the day before the Court's Order was issued, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. See ECF No. 27 at 2 (signed by Plaintiff on July 16, 2024); Id. at 4 (received by the Court on July 22, 2024). Plaintiff states that his legal documents were confiscated, and requests that the Court resend him the complaint, summons, and In Forma Pauperis Package, so that he can effect service. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant Plaintiff a 30-day extension for service from when he receives a copy of the In Formal Pauperis Package for U.S. Marshal service. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also requests that the Court issue an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) officials at California Men's Colony (“CMC”) to return or pay for all his legal documents that they confiscated. Id. at 1.
II. DISCUSSION
First, the Court addresses Plaintiff's request that the Court order CDCR officials at CMC “to return all legal documents [] that were unlawfully confiscated on or about June 22, 2024.” ECF No. 27 at 1. The Court does not have jurisdiction to order the relief Plaintiff seeks, since “CDCR officials at CMC” are not a party to this case. See ECF No. 9 at 2 (naming E. Pascual, who is a correctional officer at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, as defendant). A court does not have jurisdiction to order injunctive relief that would require directing parties not before the Court to take action. See, e.g., Duclos v. La, No. 22cv771-JLS-AHG, 2022 WL 17477916, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2022) (declining to order injunctive relief against Mule Creek State Prison when not a named defendant); cf. Ransom v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 11cv68-AWI-MJS-PC, 2015 WL 5146749, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2015) (denying inmate's request because “Plaintiff is seeking relief against a non-party. The Court does not have jurisdiction over Corcoran State Prison, and thus cannot issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against it”). As such, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.
As for Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to effect service, the Court notes that it has already provided Plaintiff with the same extension he seeks: August 30, 2024 , which is 30 days after he will have received the documents. See ECF No. 23 (documents mailed on July 17, 2024). As such, since it is evident that Plaintiff had not received the Court's July 17, 2024 Order and accompanying documents as of the time of filing the instant motion, Plaintiff's request for a 30-day extension is DENIED AS MOOT.
Upon due consideration, the Court will send Plaintiff copies of certain documents and GRANTS Plaintiff's request for copies. However, as the Court has now sent Plaintiff these documents approximately three times, it likely will not send them again.
III. CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Plaintiff's request that the Court order CDCR officials at CMC to return all legal documents is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's request for extension of time of effect service is DENIED AS MOOT. The time for service of the Second Amended Complaint has been extended until August 30, 2024 .
3. Plaintiff's requests for copies is GRANTED.
A. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail Plaintiff copies of the following:
i. This Order (ECF No. 28)
ii. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9)
iii. Order Screening Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10)
iv. Order regarding Multiple Service Motions (ECF No. 23)
v. Order regarding Motion to Clarify (ECF No. 26)
B. The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk to, again, issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) for Defendant Pascual and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of the Second Amended Complaint and summons for use in serving Defendant. Upon receipt of this “In Forma Pauperis Package,” Plaintiff must complete the USM Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an address where Defendant may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1(c), and return the forms to the United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying the In Forma Pauperis Package. The Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint and summons upon Defendant Pascual as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. Costs of service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.