Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00332-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ALONZO JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. R. HAWKINS,,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0332 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims 

that Dr. Hawkins was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs while plaintiff 

was housed at Mule Creek State Prison in 2014. On December 27, 2016, while housed at High 

Desert State Prison, plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to “re-issue a housing order due to 

enmery [sic] restrictions in California State Prison, Sacramento.” (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff asked 

to be housed in the Sacramento County Jail due to alleged enemy restrictions. Plaintiff provided 

a list of non-confidential offender separation alerts, but did not identify the inmate on the list. 

Plaintiff’s motion is deficient in several respects. First, plaintiff’s motion is not supported 

with sufficient facts. Second, this court has not previously issued a housing order concerning any 

enemy restrictions for plaintiff. Plaintiff did not provide a copy of any prior housing order for the 

court’s review. Third, plaintiff’s central file should contain a list of plaintiff’s known enemies. 

Case 2:15-cv-00332-JAM-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/06/17 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

Plaintiff did not indicate whether the enemy he is concerned about is listed on plaintiff’s list of 

known enemies. Finally, in this action, no defendants are located at High Desert State Prison, 

where plaintiff was housed when he submitted the motion, or at California State Prison, 

Sacramento, where it appears he contends he has enemy restrictions. This court is unable to issue 

an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

For all of the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 

28) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: January 6, 2017

/jose0332.den

Case 2:15-cv-00332-JAM-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2