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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1317 MCE GGH P

vs.

J. FANNON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief filed August

4, 2005. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran. The motion

for injunctive relief is addressed to prison officials at Corcoran. However, no defendants are

located at Corcoran. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as

defendants in this action. 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). 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The fact one is not a party does not automatically preclude the court from acting. 

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) permits the court to issue writs “necessary or appropriate

in aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” See generally

S.E.C. v. G.C. George Securities, Inc., 637 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. New York

Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977). This section does not grant the court plenary power to act

in any way it wishes; rather, the All Writs Act is meant to aid the court in the exercise and

preservation of its jurisdiction. Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289

(9th Cir. 1979). 

Plaintiff seeks an order directing prison officials at Corcoran to provide him 

with immediate access to his electric typewriter. Plaintiff alleges that due to severe chronic

arthritis, he is unable to hand write with a pen for longer than five minutes. He alleges that on

July 14, 2005, Dr. Johnson referred plaintiff to the medical department for x-rays and blood tests

to confirm this condition.

Because prison officials are in the process of confirming plaintiff’s medical

condition, a court order directing them to provide plaintiff with access to his typewriter is not

warranted. Should prison officials determine that plaintiff suffers from a condition which

prohibits him from hand writing and continue to deny him access to his typewriter, plaintiff may

re-file his motion.

Plaintiff also seeks an order directing prison officials at Corcoran to provide him

with weekly access to his legal documents, books and legal supplies. After reviewing the

exhibits attached to plaintiff’s motion, it appears that some of his legal property is in storage as it

exceeds the amount inmates are permitted to have in their cells. Plaintiff does not specifically

describe the amount of access he is permitted to his stored legal property. Nor has plaintiff

described the legal property related to the instant action in storage that he has been denied access

to. Because plaintiff has not specifically pled that his ability to litigate this action has been

hampered due to inadequate access to his legal property, invocation of the All Writs Act is

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

inappropriate as to this claim.

Plaintiff next requests that prison officials at Corcoran be ordered to house him in

a single cell. Plaintiff contends that because he is mobility impaired, he is likely to be seriously

injured by other inmates if he is double celled. Plaintiff does not contend that his present

cellmate is dangerous. Therefore, plaintiff’s allegation of injury is speculative. Under these

circumstances, invocation of the All Writs Act is inappropriate as to this claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction filed August 4, 2005, be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: 9/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wash1317.tro

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 34 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 3