Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01788/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01788-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Jones
Plaintiff
M. Palombo
Defendant

Document Text:

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

KEVIN JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PALOMBO,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01788-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER (1) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE

TO PROVIDE COPY OF DOCKET TO

PLAINTIFF, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR

RETURN OF PROPERTY, (3) GRANTING

THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE OBJECTIONS, AND (4) REQUESTING

THAT DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL

FACILITATE LIMITED ACCESS TO LEGAL

MATERIAL AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS

POSSIBLE

(Doc. 44)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Kevin Jones, a

state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On January 21, 2010, the United States

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment be granted. The parties were provided thirty days within which to file any

objections.

On February 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion stating that he lost possession of his personal

property on December 12, 2009. Plaintiff seeks assistance in gaining possession of his property so

that he may respond to the Findings and Recommendations.

The Court cannot issue an order requiring prison officials to return Plaintiff’s property

because the Court lacks jurisdiction over officials at Kern Valley State Prison with respect to

Plaintiff’s current conditions of confinement. E.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.

1

Case 1:07-cv-01788-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 02/16/10 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

83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998); 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). In addition, Plaintiff’s ability to

possess his property in his cell is subject to various restrictions deemed necessary by officials to

maintain the safety and security of the institution, and may be dependent on Plaintiff’s current

housing situation or other factors. The Court is simply not equipped, particularly on the record

before it, to weigh in on the propriety of Plaintiff’s property restrictions. E.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441

U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-79 (1979); Norwood v. Vance, Nos. 07-17322, 08-15778,

2010 WL 27406, at *3 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2010). 

However, the Court will request that Defendant’s counsel, as an officer of the court, contact

the Litigation Coordinator in an effort to facilitate Plaintiff’s ability to access his legal material for

this case, to the limited extent necessary for Plaintiff to review his material and prepare his

objections to the pending Findings and Recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a copy of the docket in this case;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring prison officials to return his personal

property to him is denied for lack of jurisdiction;

3. As expeditiously as possible, Defendant’s counsel, as an officer of the court, is

requested to contact the Litigation Coordinator in an effort to facilitate Plaintiff’s

ability to access his legal material for this case, to the limited extent necessary for

Plaintiff to review his material and prepare his objections to the pending Findings

and Recommendations; and

4. Plaintiff is granted a thirty-day extension of time to file an Objection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01788-OWW -GSA Document 45 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2