Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-37/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 

DANNY JAMES COHEA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:00-cv-2799-GEB-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a document entitled “request for order on obstruction of justice related to 

obstruction of court order(s).” ECF No. 252. 

In this filing, plaintiff asks the court to intervene to stop prison officials from following a 

policy that plaintiff contends is obstructing his ability to litigate this case. Under the challenged 

policy, the prison stores “excess active case legal materials/documents” in a storage area, and the 

inmate-litigant can access those excess legal materials by requesting to exchange one box of legal 

materials stored in the litigant’s cell with one box in the storage area at a rate of one box 

exchange per week. Id. at 23-24. Plaintiff also claims that prison officials have retaliated against 

him for his litigation efforts by wrongfully citing him for rules violations while in the prison law 

library. He further claims that he has been deprived of physical access to the law library for 

periods of time as a result of these disciplinary citations. 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 254 Filed 02/18/15 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 

27 

28 

2

Plaintiff’s request for court intervention against persons who are not parties to this case is 

governed by The All Writs Act. That Act gives federal courts the authority to issue “all writs 

necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 

principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). It 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 who, “though not parties to the original action or 

engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the 

proper administration of justice.” United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). 

To obtain an order under the All Writs Act, the requested order must be “necessary.” This 

language requires that the relief requested is not available through some alternative means. 

Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999). Here, plaintiff has not provided the court with 

sufficient information from which the court can conclude that the order he seeks is necessary. His 

motion does not contain any specific facts showing how the challenged policy has prevented him 

from effectively litigating this case. There are no facts in the instant motion, for example, 

showing that plaintiff cannot organize his case materials in such a way so that he can access the 

materials he needs under the box exchange policy, or that prison officials are refusing to 

exchange boxes when requested by plaintiff. Nor has plaintiff produced any specific facts or 

evidence on his claims that the disciplinary actions taken against him by library staff are 

retaliatory or baseless or that, when he lacked physical access to the library he could not obtain 

the library materials he needed through the prison’s paging system. See ECF No. 252 at 

(exclaiming, “‘Paging’ systems won’t do!!!” but not explaining why). Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

request for judicial intervention should be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a new 

request for intervention presenting specific facts from which the court can conclude that prison 

officials are actually hindering his ability to litigate this case. A simple recitation of those facts is 

all that is required; plaintiff need not provide lengthy case citations. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 254 Filed 02/18/15 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 

27 

28 

3

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's “request for 

order on obstruction of justice related to obstruction of court order(s)” (ECF No. 252) be denied 

without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 17, 2015. 

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 254 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 3