Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00041/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00041-6/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

KYLE W. AVERY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0041 LKK GGH P

vs.

LT. C. HEINTSCHEL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By Order, filed on March 18, 2007, this court granted plaintiff an extension of 

time to file an opposition to defendants’ March 9, 2007, motion to dismiss because he was out to

court without his legal property. Plaintiff, by filings dated May 8, 2007, May 31, 2007, and June

1, 2007, continues, however, to seek a stay of this matter while he is out to court and still asks

that this court enjoin both CSP-Corcoran and CSP-Sacramento to provide him with his legal

property. He also claims to be denied access to the law library.

His earlier request for a form of injunctive relief was denied because, inter alia,

plaintiff did not set forth how long he would be in Sacramento, and his belief that he would be

denied adequate access to his legal property once he is returned to CSP-Corcoran appeared to be

speculative, which does not constitute irreparable harm. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v.

Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739

Case 2:06-cv-00041-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994) 1

 Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 2

F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126

(1981). 

2

F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff was informed that a presently existing actual threat must

be shown, although the injury need not be certain to occur. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine

Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130-31 (1969); FDIC v. Garner, 125 F.3d 1272, 1279-80 (9th Cir.

1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1020 (1998); Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., 844 F.2d at 674.

In the prior order, the court stated that its review of defendants’ pending motion

indicated that defendants challenge his civil rights action primarily on the ground that it is Heckbarred because plaintiff seeks money damages for a prison disciplinary action he challenges as 1

based on false information which resulted in a loss of time-credits which rules violation finding

has not been invalidated. The court also stated that plaintiff should not need extensive access to

his legal property to know whether or not he was assessed a 365-day loss of time credits for a

rules violation he claims was falsely alleged or to determine whether or not he previously brought

a petition for writ of habeas corpus that led to the finding of guilt being invalidated.

The court now takes judicial notice of plaintiff’s original complaint, which this 2

court dismissed, with leave to amend, precisely because plaintiff’s claims appeared to be Heckbarred, as plaintiff therein, inter alia, explicitly referenced having been assessed a 365-day

behavioral credit loss (see, Order, filed on May 5, 2006), a reference he abandoned in his first

amended complaint, as he concedes, on a belief that he would be able thereby to proceed on his

present claims. Among plaintiff’s present filings, plaintiff appears to be claiming that he was

impeded from seeking invalidation of the prison disciplinary at issue by way of a habeas petition

by unnamed prison officials. Plaintiff’s 5/8/05, notice, p. 4. Plaintiff also claims that credit loss

is not an issue in his case because he has no behavioral credit as a three-striker sentenced for

Case 2:06-cv-00041-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 5
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

robbery to a term of 35 years to life. Id., at 5. Although the court could construe the notice filed

by plaintiff as his opposition, he claims that there is more that he could argue should he have

access to his legal property and to the law library. 

In construing plaintiff’s prior request as one for an extension of time, plaintiff was

told that he must provide the court with more information as to when he expects to return to

CSP-Corcoran and must also thereafter demonstrate that he is denied all access to his legal

property upon his return in order to show any need for injunctive relief from this court. As to any

other case he had pending, plaintiff was informed that he might seek relief before the appropriate

judge. 

In his 5/8/07 notice (pages 9-10), plaintiff indicates that he would be out to court

and housed at CSP-Sac, without access to his legal property or the law library, at least until after

5/25/07, and unhelpfully contends that this court’s expectations are “unreasonable.” This court,

however, is unable to provide plaintiff assistance in obtaining access to his legal property and to

the law library, if plaintiff is unable to make clear where he is located and where his legal

property is maintained. Various unauthenticated exhibits to his 5/8/07 notice are appended,

which plaintiff intends to demonstrate his efforts to obtain his legal property. The grievances

plaintiff submits seek to implicate both CSP-Corcoran and CSP-Sac in the deprivation of his

legal property and access to the law library. 

Plaintiff, as of May 31, 2007, has filed a notice of change of address to CSP-Sac. 

On June 1, 2007, plaintiff states that he cannot anticipate the criminal court’s schedule regarding

the proceedings he states he is currently involved in or the length of time such proceedings will

take. As plaintiff is currently housed at CSP-Sac, where defendants in this action, Correctional

Lieutenants C. Heintschel and D. Padilla, and C/O J.S. Stewart, are employed, counsel for

defendants is now directed to show cause, within ten (10) days, for plaintiff’s being denied all

access to his legal property and to the law library, if that is occurring. To the extent that

defendants may no longer be employed at CSP-Sac, or are otherwise not able to provide a

Case 2:06-cv-00041-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 5
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

response, then, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the court will direct the

warden of CSP-Sacramento, or his designee, to show cause, within ten days, for plaintiff’s being

denied all access to his legal property and to the law library, if he is. 

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 is not allowed access to his legal property or to the law library. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to plaintiff's filings of May 8, 2007, May 31, 2007 and June 1, 2007,

defendants are directed to show cause, within ten days, for plaintiff’s being denied, if he is, all

access to his legal property and to the law library so that he may prepare his opposition to

defendants’ pending motion to dismiss;

2. In the alternative, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the warden

of CSP-Sacramento, or his designee, is directed to show cause, within 20 days, for plaintiff’s

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

unable to continue to prosecute this action.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00041-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

3. In addition to serving counsel for defendants electronically and plaintiff by

mail, the Clerk of the Court is also directed to serve this order by mail upon CSP-Sacramento

Warden James Walker, P. O. Box 290002, Represa, CA 95671-0002. 

DATED: 7/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

aver0041.osc

Case 2:06-cv-00041-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 07/02/07 Page 5 of 5