Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208-19/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action was stayed pending 

referral to the ADR pilot project, and set for settlement conference on September 22, 2016. Prior 

to the settlement conference, plaintiff signed three motions for injunctive relief. First, plaintiff 

alleged that he was deprived the opportunity to file a more complete settlement conference 

statement because his property was packed for his transfer before the deadline expired. Second, 

plaintiff argued he was at risk of not being transported to court for the settlement conference

because his insistence he needed to retain his property was going to be construed as a refusal to 

transport. Third, plaintiff asked the court to order that he be transported to and from the court on 

single cell status, that his cell at California State Prison, Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”), be locked while 

he is out to court, and that following the settlement conference, he be returned forthwith to CSPLAC along with his legal materials.

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 70 Filed 10/11/16 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

This action was stayed on May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 53.) The undersigned ordered: “[e]xcept 

as provided herein or by subsequent court order, no other pleadings or other documents may be 

filed in this case during the stay of this action.” (Id.) In light of the stay, plaintiff’s motions 

violated the court’s order. 

Second, the record reflects that plaintiff submitted his settlement statement, was transported 

for the settlement conference, and participated in the settlement conference. Thus, it appears his 

claims are moot. Moreover, no defendants are located at CSP-LAC, where plaintiff was formerly 

housed, or at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”), where plaintiff is currently 

housed. This action proceeds against defendants employed at High Desert State Prison. Thus, 

the pending motions seek injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants. 

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). The 

undersigned further finds that requiring prison officials at CSP-LAC or CSP-SAC to respond to 

plaintiff’s motions pursuant to the All Writs Act is not warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief are denied without prejudice. 

Finally, this action did not settle. Service of process was executed on all the remaining 

defendants. (ECF No. 39.) Therefore, the stay is lifted, and counsel for defendants is directed to 

file a responsive pleading. On October 3, 2016, defendants filed a request for extension of time 

to file a responsive pleading. Good cause appearing, defendants’ request is granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The stay of this action is lifted, and the Clerk is directed to re-open this action; 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 64, 66, 68) are denied without 

prejudice; 

3. Defendants’ request for extension of time (ECF No. 69) is granted; and

4. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before October 21, 2016. 

Dated: October 11, 2016

/cran0208.lftsty

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 70 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2