(PC) Windham v. State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES WINDHAM, No. 2:20-cv-773 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his rights by taking items from his cell. 19 This case was dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute on April 20 14, 2021. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) 21 Plaintiff has now filed a notice informing the court that he is in danger. He alleges that 22 prison officials have not taken sufficient action to protect him after prison gangs threatened to kill 23 him. He asks the court to send “FBI, U.S. Marshals, Assistant U.S. Attorney” and seeks to 24 prevent a transfer back to Mule Creek State Prison. 25 To the extent plaintiff believes his rights have been violated and he is in danger, he cannot 26 pursue relief via this action which has been closed. Additionally, the allegations contained in his 27 notice do not relate to the allegations contained in the complaint filed in this case. Thus, the relief 28 sought cannot be granted because it would be directed toward individuals who are not parties to 1 | this action, Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969) □□□□ is 2 | elementary that one is not bound by a judgment ... resulting from litigation in which he is not 3 | designated as a party ....”), and the relief sought is unrelated to plaintiff's underlying claims in 4 | this action, Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th 5 | Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, 6 | the court does not have authority to issue an injunction.”). Plaintiff is advised file a separate 7 | action seeking relief based on the allegations contained in this filing. 8 Plaintiff has also stated that the present action was dismissed because Mule Creek State 9 | Prison staff stole his legal mail. He further states that the warden and correctional officer Cook 10 | gave plaintiff to the Nazi Low Riders and Aryan Brotherhood prison gangs. He was 11 | “involuntarily drugged, sedated, repeatedly raped, tortured, terrorized, sleep-deprived, 12 | brainwashed, ‘brain-seeded’ (w[ith] sodium pentothal).” (ECF No. 23 at 2.) 13 If plaintiff would like to challenge the order of judgment in this case based on the 14 | confiscation of his legal mail, plaintiff is advised to file a motion for relief from judgment of this action along with a proposed amended complaint. Any such motion should clearly set forth the 16 | reason he failed to respond to the court’s prior orders. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief sought in plaintiff's notice (ECF 18 | No. 23) is denied. Should plaintiff seek to reopen this action he should file a motion for relief 19 | from judgment within thirty days of the date of this order along with a proposed amended 20 | complaint. 21 | Dated: June 14, 2021 23 A ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 DB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/wind0773.post.dism 28 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