Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01758-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE EDWARD PEYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01758-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE AND TO

HOLD WARDEN FELKER IN CONTEMPT

(Doc. 12) 

Plaintiff Lee Edward Peyton (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 6, 2006, and

sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 17, 2007, the Court ordered plaintiff to either

pay the filing fee in full or file a new, completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On

February 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court immediately intervene and order

High Desert State Prison Warden T. Felker to comply with the order of January 17, 2007, and

requesting that the Court hold Warden Felker in contempt. Plaintiff asserts that he submitted the

application to proceed in forma pauperis to the litigation coordinator on January 25, 2007, and has

received no response. 

The Court’s understanding is that the prison’s trust account office will complete plaintiff’s

application and forward it directly to the Court. This process can take up to thirty days or more.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion approximately two weeks after mailing his application to the

litigation coordinator. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Court does not have jurisdiction over Warden Felker and may not order him to comply

with the order of January 17, 2007. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719,

727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the

parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of

persons not before the court.”). To the extent that the Court will in some circumstances intervene

and request the cooperation of prison officials over whom it has no jurisdiction, the assertion that

plaintiff has not yet heard anything provides no basis for the Court to intervene, given the prison’s

process for completing applications to proceed in forma pauperis and the short period of time that

has passed since plaintiff forwarded his application. Insufficient time has passed for plaintiff or this

Court to conclude that prison officials are not going to process the application and send it to the

Court. 

Plaintiff is strongly encouraged to contact his correctional counselor and request

verification that the application has been received by the trust office. If the application has

been received, it will likely be sent to the Court within a month or so. If the application has

not been received, plaintiff should fill out a new one and request the assistance of his counselor

in ensuring that it is sent to the trust office. If plaintiff correctly follows the process in place

for submitting applications to the trust office, the Court is confident that the completed

application will be mailed to the Court. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for immediate assistance and to hold Warden

Felker in contempt, filed February 13, 2007, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01758-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2