Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01122-3/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

DEVONTE FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01122-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(Docs. 11, 12, 14)

Plaintiff Devonte Fields is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that correctional officers at 

California State Prison, Corcoran, used excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment 

rights. Plaintiff has filed three notices of change of address, which include motions or requests for 

various relief. (Docs. 11, 12, 14.) 

I. FILINGS

In his first notice of change of address, Plaintiff alleges that he is being retaliated against 

for filing “numerous of grievances due to my legal mail being withheld working to have my 

cases dismissed.” (Doc. 11.) He complains that his outgoing mail is not being sent, and he is 

“not being treated right.” Plaintiff requests a 90-day extension of time because he is soon to be 

transferred to a different facility, and he requests the Court to send his mail “sealed.” (Id.)

In his second “notice,” Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully convicted of shooting at a 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 03/27/23 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

Sacramento Police Officer in 2014. (Doc. 12.) He acknowledges that “this has nothing to do with 

the case at hand,” but he challenges his assault conviction and seeks a writ of habeas corpus 

based on false evidence used at trial. (Doc. 12 at 1–4). He also complains that he has not 

received mail sent by family, his outgoing mail is not being sent out, and his personal and legal 

property is missing. (Id. at 5.) Therefore, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the prison to stop

retaliating against him and to stop tampering with his confidential mail. Plaintiff requests that the 

Court not send him “opened mail” to avoid retaliation and to order the Clerk of Court to “seal” 

his confidential mail. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also seeks a 60-day extension of time to respond to the 

Court.

In a third “notice” and motion, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the “prison in the 

Western Division to stop retaliating against Plaintiff by targeting his mail.” (Doc. 14 at 1.)

Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court is not “part of the jurisdiction of this prison.” (Id.)

However, he also asks “this Court [to] stop tak[ing] my restitution money as next time I will send 

more information.” (Id. at 3.)

II. DISCUSSION

To the extent that Plaintiff complains of retaliation and tampering with his mail, his 

request is unrelated to the allegations or claims raised is this action. Plaintiff indicates that he has 

filed grievances regarding his mail, and he must exhaust his remedies before he can raise the 

issue in a (separate) action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff requests that mail from the Court be sent under seal. Prisoners have “a First 

Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(per curiam). This includes having a properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence. 

Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). However, “[m]ail from the 

courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 

1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Hayes, 849 F.3d 

at 1211 (explaining the First Amendment does not prohibit opening mail from the courts outside 

the recipient's presence). All filings and correspondence from a court to a litigant is in the public 

record, which is accessible to prison officials. Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1094. Moreover, Plaintiff has 

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 03/27/23 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

not followed the procedures set forth in Local Rule 141, which governs sealing of documents. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for documents from the court to be sent under seal is denied.

To the extent that Plaintiff challenges the restitution order, Plaintiff’s request to cease 

restitution payments is not properly before this court. Rather, Plaintiff must seek relief from the 

sentencing court, and restitution is unrelated to the claims raised in this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff has requested 90-day and 60-day extensions of time. The court docket reveals

nothing pending that requires a response from Plaintiff. The requests for extensions of time are

unnecessary, and, hence, denied..

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for miscellaneous relief,

(Docs. 11, 12, 14), are DENIED.

Each of the motions concerns matters unrelated to the instant case and seeks relief that 

cannot be granted in this case. Such meritless or frivolous pleadings burden the docket and 

interfere with the Court’s ability to consider pending matters. Therefore, Plaintiff is admonished not 

to file motions seeking relief unrelated to the excessive force claims against the named defendants in 

this case. If Plaintiff fails to obey this order, he may be subject to sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01122-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 03/27/23 Page 3 of 3