Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00940/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00940-12/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE BRIDGES,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0940 GEB DAD P

vs.

SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several of plaintiff’s

motions.

BACKGROUND

In his third amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that white inmates attacked black

inmates on the yard at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). According to plaintiff, prison

officials knew of the planned attack and failed to take action to prevent it and then unfairly

punished black inmates in connection with the incident by thereafter placing them on an

extended lock-down. Plaintiff alleges that he subsequently received a prison rules violation

report (“RVR”) charging him with conspiracy to murder peace officers. Defendant Davey had

received information from a confidential inmate source that black inmates, including plaintiff,

1

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 101 Filed 03/26/13 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

were targeting several staff members for assault. After twice re-issuing and rehearing the RVR,

defendants found plaintiff guilty of the charge and referred him to the Inmate Classification

Committee (“ICC”). The ICC assessed plaintiff a forty-eight month security housing unit (SHU)

term and transferred him to CSP-Corcoran to serve that disciplinary term. Plaintiff claims that

defendants retaliated against him, engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment, and subjected him to cruel and unusual

punishment. (Third Am. Compl. 5-19.) 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

Plaintiff has filed two virtually identical motions for a court order allowing him to

communicate with prisoners at other prisons and to seek declarations from any eye witnesses to

the events placed in question by this action. California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139

provides in part:

Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the Warden/

Regional Parole Administrator or their designee/assigned probation

officer, person in charge of the County Jail and/or other State

Correctional Systems, at a level not less than Correctional

Captain/Facility Captain or Parole Agent III, to correspond with

any of the following:

(1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal,

juvenile or adult correctional agency.

(2) Persons committed to any county, state or federal program as a

civil addict.

(3) Persons on parole or civil addict outpatient status under the

jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or adult

correctional agency.

In previous orders, the court has instructed plaintiff to avail himself of the process provided for

by the California Code of Regulations to obtain approval to correspond with his potential thirdparty inmate witnesses. According to plaintiff’s pending motions, he has attempted to avail

himself of the process but has been unsuccessful. Plaintiff contends that he has also sought relief

through the prison administrative grievance process but has not received assistance through that

2

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 101 Filed 03/26/13 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

means either. (Pl.’s Mots. for Decls. from Inmate Witnesses at 1-2.) 

The court will deny plaintiff’s motions for a court order. As an initial matter, this

court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than plaintiff and defendants. 

See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). As such, the

court cannot order the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to

authorize plaintiff to communicate with inmates at other prisons as plaintiff requests. At most,

the court can request the assistance of the director or other officials at CDCR. However, under

the circumstances of this case, the court declines to do so. Even if plaintiff has adequately

pursued the prison administrative procedures for authorization to communicate with inmates at

other prisons he has not shown this court that any such communications are necessary to

prosecute this action. See Puckett v. Bailey, No. 1:10-cv-2145 LJO GBC (PC), 2012 WL

1196488, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) (denying plaintiff’s motion to correspond with inmate

witnesses because he failed to show the prospective witnesses had relevant knowledge); Tilei v.

Wan, No. 1:06-cv-0776 OWW GSA, 2011 WL 121552, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) (same). 

Specifically, in his pending motions plaintiff lists eight potential third-party

inmate witnesses and describes what he believes each of them could provide in terms of

testimony. Plaintiff contends that these prospective witnesses can testify as to how the racial

attack between white inmates and black inmates took place, how prison officials treated them

during the extended lock-down, and how they too were falsely charged and convicted of rules

violations and transferred from HDSP. However, this sort of testimony is not relevant with

respect to the question of whether defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rather,

this sort of testimony goes to whether defendants violated the constitutional rights of these

witnesses. In this regard, plaintiff has not made an adequate showing that these potential thirdparty inmate witnesses possess relevant evidence with regard to this action. Moreover, to the

extent plaintiff is seeking bad character evidence, evidence of a defendant’s character is not 

/////

3

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 101 Filed 03/26/13 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

admissible to show that on a specific occasion he acted in accordance with that character. See

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).1

Plaintiff has also filed a motion and “request for a ruling of summary judgment

reliefs” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff’s motion is difficult to

decipher. However, plaintiff appears to believe that he is entitled to summary judgment in his

favor due to defendants’ failure to file a motion for summary judgment after the court granted

them three extensions of time to do so. First, if defendants elected not to file a motion for

summary judgment, their decision to do so would not entitle plaintiff to judgment as a matter of

law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“A party may move for summary judgment. . . .”) (emphasis

added). Moreover, on October 8, 2012, the defendants timely filed their motion for summary

judgment. Upon review of the docket, however, the court observes that plaintiff has not opposed

that motion. Presumably, plaintiff was awaiting a ruling from this court on his motions for a

court order allowing him to communicate with inmates at other prisons. Having ruled upon

plaintiff’s motions, the court will now order plaintiff to file an opposition to defendants’ pending

motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days. Any failure on plaintiff’s part to file an

opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition to the defendants’ motion for

summary judgment and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion for a court-ordered settlement conference. 

Plaintiff is advised that if this case survives summary judgment, the court will order the parties to

 In his motions, plaintiff also requests a court-appointed “interpreter.” Plaintiff would 1

like the interpreter, which the court construes as a request to appoint an expert on plaintiff’s

behalf, to review the documents in his central file and provide the court with an objective review

of the racial attack between white and black inmates at HDSP. Although the court granted

plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, “‘the expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an

indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress.’” Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210,

211 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976). The

expenditure of public funds for an “interpreter” or an expert witness is not authorized by the in

forma pauperis statute or any other statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

4

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 101 Filed 03/26/13 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

participate in a mandatory settlement conference as a matter of course. At this time, however,

such an order would be premature. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for a court order allowing him to communicate with

prisoners at other prisons (Doc. Nos. 89 & 94) are denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion and “request for a ruling of summary judgment reliefs”

(Doc. No. 95) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a court-ordered settlement conference (Doc. No. 98) is

denied as premature;

4. Plaintiff’s requests for rulings on his pending motions (Doc. No. 99 & 100) are

granted; and

5. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

within twenty-one days of the date of service of this order. Failure to file an opposition will be

deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Defendants shall file a reply, if any,

in accordance with Local Rule 230(l).

DATED: March 21, 2013.

DAD:9

brid0940.mots(3)

5

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 101 Filed 03/26/13 Page 5 of 5