From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perryman v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 15, 2016
No. 2: 15-cv-2646 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2: 15-cv-2646 JAM KJN P

03-15-2016

DAVID PERRYMAN, Plaintiff, v. S.W. THOMAS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 27, 2016, the court granted plaintiff sixty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.)

On March 3, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a court order. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff alleges that because he is indigent, he cannot afford to buy pens for legal work. Plaintiff alleges that inmates in the psychiatric services unit ("PSU") at California State Prison-Sacramento ("CSP-Sac"), where he is incarcerated, are given one pen filler per week. Plaintiff alleges that recently there have been no pens, and he was informed that it could be "a few months" before "they" receive more pen fillers. Plaintiff alleges that he is down to his last pen filler. Plaintiff alleges that he requires pen fillers to prepare his amended complaint. Plaintiff requests that the court order prison officials to provide him with two pen fillers per week. ////

No defendants have been served. Usually persons or entities not parties to an action are not subject to orders for injunctive relief. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). However, the fact that 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 jurisdiction 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).

The court is concerned that it may lose jurisdiction if plaintiff cannot prepare his amended complaint if he does not have access to pen fillers or other writing instruments. Accordingly, the CSP-Sac Warden is directed to file a status report addressing plaintiff's access to pen fillers or other writing instruments.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days of the date of this order, the CSP-Sac Warden shall file the status report described above;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and the March 3, 2016 motion for court order (ECF No. 14) on Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson and the Warden at California State Prison-Sacramento, California State Prison-Sacramento, P.O. Box 290066, Represa, California, 95671-0066. Dated: March 15, 2016

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Per2646.ord


Summaries of

Perryman v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 15, 2016
No. 2: 15-cv-2646 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)
Case details for

Perryman v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:DAVID PERRYMAN, Plaintiff, v. S.W. THOMAS, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 15, 2016

Citations

No. 2: 15-cv-2646 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)