Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05935/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05935-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE PATRICK HANEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALDANA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5935 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO

CORRESPOND WITH INMATE 

(Doc. 22.) 

 Bruce Patrick Haney (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on July 6, 2004. On November 22, 2005, the Court screened the Complaint and dismissed

it with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 16, 2005. On

December 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed another Complaint also titled “First Amended Complaint.” 

On November 20, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Requesting Order to

Correspond with Inmate Witness.” In this pleading, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an Order

directing the prison to allow Plaintiff to confidentially correspond with an inmate incarcerated at

another prison. Plaintiff states that this other inmate is a witness in his case and that he needs to

be able to correspond with him to litigate this case. 

Case 1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS Document 23 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court is unable to issue the type of Order requested by Plaintiff. At best and under

the right circumstances, the Court would merely make a request to the prison that Plaintiff be

allowed to communicate with another inmate he contends is a witness in his case. Such a

request, however, cannot be made casually. 

Here, according to the Court docket, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint has not yet

been screened by the Court to determine whether it states a cognizable claim for relief. Until

such screening occurs and the Court makes such a finding, the Court will not order service of the

Complaint on the named Defendants. Only after the Complaint is served, an Answer is filed and

the Court opens discovery, may Plaintiff begin to develop his case through discovery which

would include communication with necessary witnesses. Plaintiff would need to make a

showing at that time exactly why a particular inmate witness and communication with that

witness is necessary to his case. Even upon such a showing, Plaintiff is reminded that the Court

cannot Order the prison to allow such communication, it can only make a request that it be

allowed. At this stage in the proceedings and for the reasons set forth above, however, Plaintiff’s

request must be denied. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Request for Order to Correspond with Inmate Witness is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05935-AWI-SMS Document 23 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2