Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00024-4/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERNARD L. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON – 

SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-0024 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action brought 

 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 26, 2012, the undersigned directed, among other 

things, that the first amended complaint proceed against certain defendants, on certain claims, 

raised by plaintiff in connection with alleged constitutional violations at California State Prison – 

Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). 

 Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion for Supplemental Briefing FRCP 15(b) & (d),” alleging 

that plaintiff “is being subjected to unconstitutional conditions here at RJ Donovan.” ECF No. 28 

at 1. Plaintiff apparently seeks to amend his complaint to add claims related to his treatment at 

his current prison. Id. at 5. Plaintiff would also like an order directing, among other things: (1) 

telephonic conferences with a magistrate judge every nine days; (2) certain “medical amenities”; 

(3) return of his legal property, without which he alleges he has missed two deadlines in cases 

pending in the Central District of California; and (4) a housing assignment away from nonCase 2:12-cv-00024-MCE-AC Document 31 Filed 06/13/13 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

medical gang members. Id. at 2-4. 

 Plaintiff’s requests are denied. As the court has previously informed plaintiff, if he wishes 

to litigate claims related to his current incarceration in the Southern District of California he may 

file a separate complaint for damages in that district. ECF No. 10, Order filed June 13, 2013, at 4. 

Plaintiff’s current prison is not a defendant in this action, nor are any of the officials working at it. 

Id. at 3. This court lacks jurisdiction to issue orders directing the behavior of non-defendants in 

another district. Id. See also ECF No. 8, Order filed April 26, 2012 denying plaintiff’s “Motion 

Before Action or Pending Appeal”, at 2 (denying plaintiff’s request to add additional defendants 

based on incidents which occurred after complaint was filed). 

 The deadlines previously established by the Court’s March 13, 2013 scheduling and 

discovery order remain in effect. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 12, 2013 

 ___________________________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AC:rb/smit0024.ord 

Case 2:12-cv-00024-MCE-AC Document 31 Filed 06/13/13 Page 2 of 2