(PC) Dalke v. King ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA JASON DALKE, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00534-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 13 v. ) MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIRD PARTY INMATE WITNESSES 14 KING CLARK, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 76) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Joshua Jason Dalke is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for a court order to allow him to 20 correspond with third party inmate witnesses, filed March 4, 2021. 21 California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139 governs correspondence between inmates, 22 parolees, and probationers. It provides in part: 23 (a) Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the Warden/ Regional Parole Administrator or their designee/assigned probation officer, person in charge of the County Jail and/or 24 other State Correctional Systems, at a level not less than Correctional Captain/Facility Captain or Parole Agent III, to correspond with any of the following: 25 26 (1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency. 27 (2) Persons committed to any county, state or federal program as a civil addict. 28 1 (3) Persons on parole or civil addict outpatient status under the jurisdiction of any county, stat 5 or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency. 3 (4) Persons on probation. 4 || Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15, § 3139. 5 Plaintiff contends that he has taken steps by filing two inmate requests for interview in order t 6 || correspond with third party inmate witnesses. First, as stated in the Court’s February 18, 2021 order, 7 || Plaintiff fails to identify why he needs communication with certain inmate witnesses is necessary at g || this time, as the case is not set for trial and discovery just opened. In addition, Plaintiff has not show! g || that he availed himself of the applicable process and was denied. See Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15, § 10 || 3139(b) (“Inmates may initiate requests to correspond with the above by contacting their Correctiona 11 || Counselor I (CCI).”) However, even if Plaintiff has adequately pursued the prison administrative 12 || procedures for authorization to communicate with inmates at other prisons he has not shown this cou! 13 || that any such communications are necessary to prosecute this action. See Puckett v. Bailey, No. 1:10 14 cv—-2145 LJO GBC (PC), 2012 WL 1196488, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) (denying plaintiff's 15 || motion to correspond with inmate witnesses because he failed to show the prospective witnesses had 16 || relevant knowledge); Tilei v. Wan, No. 1:06-cv-0776 OWW GSA, 2011 WL 121552, at *7 (E.D. Ca 17 || Jan.13, 2011) (same). Moreover, Plaintiff is advised cautioned that this Court does not have 18 || jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than plaintiff and defendants. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. 19 || Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Accordingly, Plaintiff's second motion for a 20 || court order to correspond with third party inmate witnesses. 21 22 ||} IT IS SO ORDERED. Al (re 23 |! Dated: _ March 8, 2021 OF 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28