Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02290-42/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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRAD WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institution (CCI), in Tehachapi, 

who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. On March 13, 2013, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued Amended Findings and 

Recommendations (ECF No. 259),1 which are pending for review by the District Judge. 

Meanwhile, plaintiff has filed several matters, including the following: (1) Motion for Special 

Hearing (ECF No. 270); (2) Motion to File a Reply to Defendants’ Objections to the Amended 

Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 271); and (3) Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 272). For 

the following reasons, only the motion concerning plaintiff’s reply is granted.

////

 

1

The findings and recommendations were amended solely for the purpose of correctly

citing current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56; the legal analysis remained unchanged from the 

original Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 257).

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 275 Filed 12/12/13 Page 1 of 6
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

1. Motion for Special Hearing (ECF No. 270)

Pursuant to this motion (83 pages in length, including exhibits), plaintiff states that, on 

April 2, 2013, CCI Correctional Officer Speth willfully delivered to another inmate plaintiff’s 

legal mail, specifically, a copy of the objections to the pending findings and recommendations 

filed by attorney Shanan Hewitt on behalf of defendant Mary Brockett. Plaintiff alleges that this 

unnamed inmate (“housed [at] 4A-5A-105”) willfully signed the legal log book, forging 

plaintiff’s name. The subject legal mail was routed to plaintiff on April 7, 2013, by Correctional 

Officer Duncan, who told plaintiff that that the inmate housed in “5A-105” had, that same day, 

returned the opened mail to Correctional Officer Montgomery, who gave the mail to Officer

Duncan to deliver to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the unidentified inmate made intimidating 

statements to plaintiff on April 7 and 11, 2013, letting others know that plaintiff was a 

“government informant” (referencing plaintiff’s role in the alleged “sting operation” underlying 

this action) and, together with Officer Speth, attempted to dissuade a witness in this action. 

Plaintiff asserts that Officer Speth and the subject inmate have deliberately interfered with 

plaintiff’s right to pursue this action. Plaintiff seeks “an order calling for a hearing to determine 

intimidating, threatening, coercing and the interfering (sic) with my right to litigate this cause of 

action without fear and intimidation from correctional officers at CCI.” (ECF No. 270 at 29-30.) 

Elsewhere in this filing, plaintiff seeks a “preliminary injunction” “ordering CDCR Agents and 

CCI Legal Officers to cease their retaliatory acts, threats and interfering with [plaintiff’s] legal 

activities,” and “from sharing plaintiff’s confidential legal mail with other inmates, who may 

cause harm to plaintiff within CDCR. . . .” (Id. at 18.) 

These allegations against CCI officials, which the court finds only tangentially related to 

the merits of this action, cannot be added to this litigation. Plaintiff asserts that, as a result of the 

challenged conduct, he missed the deadline for filing a reply to defendant Brockett’s objections 

(ECF No. 264); however, plaintiff timely filed such reply (ECF No. 269). Moreover, plaintiff’s 

putative claims must be pursued, if at all, in a separate action after plaintiff exhausts his available 

administrative remedies. A prisoner does not comply with the exhaustion requirement by 

exhausting his administrative remedies during the course of litigation. McKinney v. Carey, 311 

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 275 Filed 12/12/13 Page 2 of 6
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

F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Similarly, plaintiff does not assert any cognizable basis for issuing a preliminary 

injunction. “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to 

demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an 

injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 

2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The principal 

purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the court’s power to render a meaningful 

decision pursuant to a trial on the merits. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). In addition to demonstrating that he will 

suffer irreparable harm if the court fails to grant the preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show 

a “fair chance of success on the merits” of his underlying claims. Sports Form, Inc. v. United 

Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1982) (internal citation omitted). Implicit in 

this showing is the assumption that the relief awarded will be only temporary, pending a full 

hearing on the merits of the claims raised in the injunction when the action is brought to trial. 

Therefore, as a general rule, this court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not 

parties to the underlying suit. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 

(1969). 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a special hearing (ECF No. 270), to challenge the 

conduct of CCI Correctional Officer Speth, additional unidentified CCI officials, and unnamed 

CCI inmates, is denied.

2. Motion to File Reply to Defendants’ Objections (ECF No. 271)

Pursuant to his “Motion for Reply” and “Reply” contained therein (51 pages in length, 

including exhibits), plaintiff requests that the court consider the merits of plaintiff’s response to 

the objections filed by defendants (other than defendant Brockett). 

Plaintiff’s motion will be granted. The Amended Findings and Recommendations

provided that “[a]ny response to the objections shall be filed and served within 14 days after 

service of the objections.” (ECF No. 259 at 74.) Defendants’ objections were served on March 

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 275 Filed 12/12/13 Page 3 of 6
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

4

27, 2013. (ECF No. 265 at 17.) Allowing three days for service of the objections on plaintiff, see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), plaintiff’s response was due by April 15, 2013, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(B) 

(the 14-day period ended on a Saturday, extending the deadline to the following Monday). 

Plaintiff submitted his response to prison officials on April 18, 2013. Application of the mailbox 

rule2renders plaintiff’s response only three days late. This delay di minimis. Moreover, as a 

matter of equity, defendants earlier sought and obtained an extension of time within to file their 

responses to plaintiff’s objections. (See ECF No. 266.) 

Therefore, plaintiff’s request will be granted. The Clerk of Court will be directed to redesignate this document as a “REPLY by Stewart Manago to ECF No. 265 Objections to 

Findings and Recommendations,” and the substance of this reply shall be included in the district 

judge’s consideration of the Amended Findings and Recommendations. 

3. Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 272)

Pursuant to this motion, plaintiff seeks an order enjoining attorney Hewitt and CCI Prison 

Officials from opening plaintiff’s legal mail outside of plaintiff’s presence and/or to order Hewitt

to cease refusing service of plaintiff’s legal filings. Plaintiff states that Hewitt rejected the 

attempted service of two motions filed by plaintiff (now designated as ECF Nos. 270, 271). 

Plaintiff states that he had submitted the motions to CCI Correctional Officer Cannon for mailing; 

but that Officer Speth returned them to plaintiff on April 26, 2013, with a message that they were 

not deliverable as addressed. However, the address that plaintiff identifies for Ms. Hewitt 

matches that on the court’s docket.

Plaintiff asserts that “[i]t appears that CCI Prison Officials and Attorney Heweitt are using 

delay tactics, oppression, harassment and massive expense for their own political profit.” (ECF 

No. 272 at 3.) Plaintiff also asserts that “CCI Prison officials, and the mailroom staff, has 

attempted to have me to believe that the mail left the institution, but it did not because these 

stamps are suspect.” (Id. at 4 (sic).) For the reasons previously set forth in denying plaintiff’s 

 

2

See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that “the Houston mailbox 

rule” applies to Section 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 

266, 276 (1988) (“mailbox rule” establishes the filing date of a habeas appeal as the date 

petitioner delivers the appeal to prison authorities for purposes of forwarding it to the court clerk).

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 275 Filed 12/12/13 Page 4 of 6
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

5

motion for a special hearing, this motion is also denied. Plaintiff’s allegations and claims against 

these CCI officials and/or attorney Hewitt are only tangentially related to this litigation, and must 

be brought in a separate action, if at all, after plaintiff has exhausted his available administrative 

remedies.

4. Additional Filings (ECF Nos. 273, 274)

Plaintiff has filed a copy of letter he wrote to M. Lopes, Special Master in the ongoing 

class action litigation that addresses the care of mentally ill prisoners in California, Coleman v. 

Brown, Case No. 2:90–cv–0520 LKK DAD P. The letter contains plaintiff’s allegations that 

Officer Speth shared plaintiff’s confidential legal information with another, unidentified, inmate, 

who then allegedly made threats against plaintiff, allegedly endangering plaintiff’s health and 

safety; and alleges that CCI officials have failed to properly process plaintiff’s attempts to file and 

exhaust pertinent administrative grievances, allegedly in an attempt to cover up staff misconduct. 

(ECF No. 273.) The undersigned finds that this letter requires no response in this action, for the 

reasons previously stated.

Finally, plaintiff has filed a notice that he intends to file a Motion for Status Report, “due 

to CDCR-staffs continuing to engage in multiple counts of obstruction of justice, witness 

tampering and making false statements . . . .” (ECF No. 274 at 1.) This notice requires no 

response. It is premature to require any status reports in this action until the district judge has 

ruled on the Amended Findings and Recommendations.

For these reasons, no action is required by the court based on plaintiff’s two most recent 

filings (ECF No. 273, 274). 

5. Admonition

Plaintiff has repeatedly been admonished to refrain from filing extraneous matters in this 

action. (See e.g. ECF No. 148; ECF No. 206 at 4-5; ECF No. 211.) Plaintiff is again admonished 

to refrain from filing any matters in this case unless directed by the court, under penalty of 

sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11;3Local Rules 110,4183(a).5

 

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) authorizes the imposition of sanctions for conduct by counsel “or

unrepresented party” that includes the submission of written matters “presented for any improper

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 275 Filed 12/12/13 Page 5 of 6
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

6

6. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 271) that the court consider the merits of plaintiff’s reply 

to the objections filed by defendants (other than defendant Brockett), is GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-designate ECF No. 271 as a “REPLY by Stewart 

Manago to ECF No. 265 Objections to Findings and Recommendations;” the substance of this 

reply shall be included in the district judge’s consideration of the Amended Findings and 

Recommendations. 

3. Plaintiff’s remaining requests (ECF Nos. 270 and 272), are DENIED.

4. Plaintiff is admonished to refrain from filing any further matters in this action unless 

directed to do so by the court.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 12, 2013

/mana2290.misc.12.2013

 

purpose, such as to harass . . . .”

4

Local Rule 110 provides in full: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

5

Local Rule 183(a) provides in pertinent part: “Any individual representing himself or

herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on ‘counsel’ by these Rules apply to

individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for 

dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.”

Case 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN Document 275 Filed 12/12/13 Page 6 of 6