Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LANCASTER, JEFFERY MILLS,

DEXTER WILLIAMS, WILLIAM DENNIS,

STEVE LIVADITIS, JIMMY VAN PELT,

H. LEE HEISHMAN III AND JOHNATON

GEORGE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and ROBERT L. AYERS, JR.,

Acting Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants. /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER RE LETTER RE

BARNETT

The Court has received a letter from Attorney Jennifer M. Corey, who is representing

Inmate Lee Max Barnett in a habeas matter. That is background, however, and the letter raises

an issue concerning inmate reclassification and claims that the warden misused an order issued

herein earlier to reclassify Inmate Barnett, who has gone on a hunger strike in protest. The

letter indicates that it has been sent to counsel of record. The attorney writing this letter is not

counsel of record and does not represent the class. There has been no motion to intervene by

Inmate Barnett. Any relief to be sought on behalf of Inmate Barnett, therefore, must be brought

by plaintiff’s counsel of record on behalf of a class member, namely by the Prison Law Office. 

Alternatively, Inmate Barnett may seek to intervene as a party and seek to be represented by

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1231 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Attorney Corey. Neither of these alternatives has been attempted, resulting in a procedural

lapse. To the extent the letter is intended as a motion, it must be denied. Be aware that a letter

is not a proper form of motion.

The Court does not intend to take any further action with respect to Inmate Barnett until

a proper motion has been made, as indicated above, and until both sides have had an

opportunity for a hearing. If Attorney Corey believes time is of the essence and there is a true

emergency and she files a motion to intervene, the Court would entertain a motion to shorten

time so the matter could be heard on an expedited basis. The Court requests that counsel for

defendants speak with Attorney Corey to see if this problem can be resolved informally. This

step, however, is not a prerequisite to Inmate Barnett’s seeking to intervene in a proper manner

should Attorney Corey deem it necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1231 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2