Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01225-21/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST C. WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 3, 2007, the court recommended that defendants’ motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust state court remedies be granted in part and denied in part. The court

recommended that defendants’ motion be granted as to plaintiff’s claim concerning his broken

tooth. In particular, the court found that plaintiff signed an informal grievance regarding this

issue on January 8, 2004. On February 20, 2004, defendant Cervantes returned the appeal to

plaintiff on grounds that too much time had elapsed in that he failed to file the appeal within

fifteen working days. 

In the findings and recommendations, the court observed that plaintiff did not

explain the delay between the time he signed his appeal and when it was received by the appeals

officer, i.e. from January 8, 2004, to February 20, 2004. The court found that the inference to be

drawn, without any explanation, was that plaintiff submitted his appeal to the appeal office well

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 135 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

after he signed it. Pursuant to Woodford v. Ngo, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (2006) the court

found that the claim raised in this appeal was unexhausted because the appeal was rejected as

untimely.

In his objections filed September 6, 2007, plaintiff states that prison staff at the

Correctional Training Facility (CTF) have been withholding his legal property regarding this case

for months. Objections, p. 5. Plaintiff alleges that he could prove that his appeal was timely if

he had access to his legal property. Objections, p. 5. Attached to plaintiff’s opposition is a

memorandum dated August 23, 2007, partially granting plaintiff’s administrative appeal

regarding access to his legal property. This document indicates that because plaintiff is housed in

administrative segregation (ad seg), he must request access to his legal property. The document

states that during the week of July 16, 2007–July 20, 2007, plaintiff was allowed access to his

legal property.

In his objections, plaintiff is apparently contending that he has not had access to

his legal property since July 2007. The court is concerned that plaintiff was unable to adequately

prepare his objections because he did not have access to his legal property. 

Usually persons or entities not parties to an action are not subject to orders for

injunctive relief. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). 

However, the fact one is not a party does not automatically preclude the court from acting. 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.” See generally S.E.C.

v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. New York

Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). This section does not grant the court plenary power to act

in any way it wishes; rather, 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 named defendants to this action are not employed at CTF and cannot control

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 135 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

plaintiff’s law library access at CTF. Usually persons or entities not parties to an action are not

subject to orders for injunctive relief. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.

100 (1969). However, the fact one is not a party does not automatically preclude the court from

acting. 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.” See

generally S.E.C. v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v.

New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). This section does not grant the court plenary

power to act in any way it wishes; rather, 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 court is concerned that it may lose its jurisdiction if plaintiff is unable to

prosecute this action because he does not have access to his legal materials.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The August 3, 2007, findings and recommendations and defendants’ December

13, 2006, motion to dismiss are vacated;

2. Within twenty days of the date of this order, the Warden of the Correctional

Training Facility shall inform the court regarding plaintiff’s access to his legal property;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on the Warden of the

Correctional Training Facility, P.O. Box 689, Soledad, California, 93906-0689.

DATED: 9/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wo1225.vac

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 135 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3