Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00227-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC) 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE TO 

COURT FOR INQUIRY FOR ABOVE-STYLE 

CASE

(ECF No. 47)

Tremane Darnell Carthen (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action.

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to Court for Inquiry for Above-Style Case.” 

(ECF No. 47). In the filing, Plaintiff states that he has not received any filings in this case since 

he received the order that was issued on January 10, 2022. Plaintiff asks for an update as to the 

status of his case. Plaintiff also asks that all future documents and filings be mailed to him via 

certified mail, with the statement “Open in the Presence of Inmate” stamped on the envelope, 

because there are issues with how Bureau of Prison officials handle legal mail. Finally, Plaintiff 

alleges that he is being retaliated against for filing this suit, and states that he is seeking 

compensation based on the retaliation.

As to Plaintiff’s request for a status of this case, the Court notes that Defendants have 

waived service of process (ECF Nos. 45 & 46), and have until April 18, 2022, to file their 

responsive pleading(s).

As to Plaintiff’s request that documents be sent via certified mail with the statement 

“Open in the Presence of Inmate” stamped on the envelope, it is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request 

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 48 Filed 04/08/22 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

appears to be based on the mistaken belief that orders and documents sent by the Court are 

considered legal mail. This is not so. Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (“Mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal 

mail. Accordingly, the First Amendment does not prohibit opening such mail outside the 

recipient’s presence.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff cited 

to no authority suggesting that the Court should enter any such order. 

Finally, the Court will not address Plaintiff’s allegations that he is being retaliated against 

for filing this lawsuit. If Plaintiff believes that Bureau of Prison officials have violated his 

constitutional rights by retaliating against him, he may file a separate lawsuit against those 

officials. Alternatively, he may file a motion to supplement his complaint in this case, along with 

a proposed complaint that is complete in itself, if he believes the claims are sufficiently related.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG Document 48 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 2