Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

AN ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO

HAVECONTACTWITH INMATE WITNESSES

(ECF No. 144)

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a motion for an order permitting him to contact inmate witnesses. (ECF No. 144.) 

Inmates may only correspond with one another if they obtain written authorization from the

appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139 (2010). Further, the Court does not have

jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, and cannot order that

Plaintiff be allowed to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation

of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los

Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Since the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and

Defendants, the Court can only make a request to prison officials and cannot order them to allow

Plaintiff to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 102; Valley Forge

Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471; Jones, 444 F.3d at 1126. Plaintiff alleges that he has followed

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 147 Filed 10/19/11 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

procedures and used the available resources at the prison to obtain authorization to contact his

witnesses which has been granted, but he is still being denied communication with his witnesses. 

Plaintiff states that Inmates Torrez, Haro, Guerro, and James witnessed the use of excessive force

and deliberate indifference and Inmates Acuna and Perez can testify to the decline in his health due

to the alleged use of force. Based upon Plaintiff’s offer of proof, the Court finds that inmates Acuna

and Perez did not witness the incident alleged in the complaint and do not possess evidence relevant

to this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to contact Inmates Acuna and Perez shall be denied.

As the Court lacks jurisdiction over prison officials in this action, Plaintiff’s motion for a

court order is denied. However the Court will attempt to facilitate limited written communication 

between Plaintiff and his witnesses. A letter will be issued requesting the institutions grant

permission for communication between Plaintiff and inmates Jose Haro, CDC No. K-18074; M.

Torres CDC No. P-98683; B. James, CDC No. K-14664 and R. Guerrero CDC No. H-38157.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order permitting

Plaintiff to have contact with inmate witnesses is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 18, 2011 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

1c20kb UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 147 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 2