Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-57/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

FLOYD SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, M. H. LOPEZ, and

R. S. RIVERA,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:09-cv-01329-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION AS MOOT

(Doc. 234)

Plaintiff Floyd Scott, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 29, 2009. This action for damages is set 

for jury trial on October 6, 2015, on Plaintiff’ claim that Defendants Palmer, Rivera, and Lopez 

violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On September 

10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order prohibiting prison officials from separating him 

from his legal documents.

This issue was addressed by the Court in an order filed on September 3, 2015, and that 

order extended as far as is permissible under the law.1 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-47, 99 

S.Ct. 1861, 1878 (1979); Griffin v. Gomez, 741 F.3d 10, 20-1 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562 (1969) (“a court has no

power to adjudicate a personal claim or obligation unless it has jurisdiction over the person of the 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion is dated September 3, 2015, evidencing it was prepared and mailed prior to his receipt of the 

Court’s order.

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 236 Filed 09/14/15 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

defendant”); Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (a 

the federal court “may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED as moot in light of the order filed on 

September 3, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 236 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 2