Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02658/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02658-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TUNSTALL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2658 DFL JFM P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 15, 2006 and September 6, 2006,

plaintiff filed, through an individual identified as a “next friend,” documents in which

contentions are made that petitioner is in the administrative segregation unit at California

Medical Facility and that he is being denied all access to his legal property and to the law library,

and that he is being denied adequate medical care. The document filed September 6, 2006 is

styled a motion for injunctive relief and for temporary stay of these proceedings. By order filed

September 7, 2006, respondents were directed to report to the court on the status of petitioner’s

medical condition and the status of his access to legal materials. Respondents filed their

response on September 21, 2006. On the same day, petitioner filed a letter concerning his

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 23 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

medical and mental health condition. Finally, on October 16, 2006, petitioner filed a response to

respondents’ September 21, 2006 response.

As a general proposition, requests for court action must be filed by petitioner

himself, and not a non-attorney on his behalf. Moreover, allegations concerning alleged denial of

access to medical care, to legal materials, and to the law library implicate the conditions of

plaintiff’s confinement and are not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus action. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (federal writ of habeas corpus available only to challenge fact or

duration of confinement and not conditions thereof). In addition, as a general rule this court is

unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). There are no allegations that the

respondents in this action are or have been personally involved in the alleged deprivations

complained of in the documents filed on August 15, 2006, September 7, 2006, September 21,

2006, or October 16, 2006.

Under exceptional circumstances, the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) permits

the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the

usages and principles of law.” The All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and

preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289

(9th Cir. 1979). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All Writs Act in

appropriate circumstances against persons or entities not a party to the underlying litigation. 

United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977). 

This court has reviewed the documents filed in this action on August 15, 2006 and

September 6, 2006, respondents’ September 21, 2006 response and exhibits appended thereto,

and petitioner’s September 21, 2006 letter. After completion of said review, this court finds that

the events complained of in the documents filed by or on behalf petitioner do not implicate the

court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this habeas corpus action in such a way to support issuance

of relief under the All Writs Act. Petitioner’s complaints of denial of adequate medical care and

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 23 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

interference with access to the law library must therefore be raised, if at all, in a civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the request filed August 15, 2006 and the motion

filed September 6, 2006 will be denied without prejudice, and the court will take no further

action on the information contained in petitioner’s letter filed September 21, 2006 or his October

16, 2006 response.

Petitioner included with his October 16, 2006 response a motion for the

appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in

habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18

U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of

justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the

court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at

the present time. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Finally, on October 23, 2006, respondents filed a request for an extension of time

to file an answer to the petition. Good cause appearing, respondents’ request will be granted. No

further extensions of time to file an answer will be granted. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Petitioner’s August 15, 2006 request is denied without prejudice;

2. The motion filed September 6, 2006 on behalf of petitioner is denied without

prejudice;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form for a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and accompanying instructions;

4. Petitioner’s October 16, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied; 

5. Respondents’ October 23, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted;

6. Respondents’ answer to the petition shall be filed and served not later than

forty-five days from the date of this order and no further extensions of time will be granted; and

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 23 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

7. Petitioner’s traverse shall be filed and served not later than thirty days after

service of respondents’ answer.

DATED: November 13, 2006.

12

tuns2658.o

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 23 Filed 11/14/06 Page 4 of 4