(PC) Cruz v. Savoie ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Case No. 1:19-cv-1024-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 v. (Doc. No. 26) 14 S. SAVOIE, Correctional Officer, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for court order filed July 15, 2021. (Doc. 18 No. 26, “Motion”). Plaintiff states he currently is confined at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) 19 for an “out to court proceeding” in his one paragraph Motion. (Id.). Plaintiff requests the Court 20 to: (1) issue an order directing Officer Chandler at Pelican Bay State Prison to send Plaintiff’s 21 “personal property and legal paperwork” to him so he may litigate an unrelated case; and (2) issue 22 an order directing Officer Wagner at KVSP to “release one box of legal paperwork” previously 23 sent to him Officer Chandler. 24 Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on his civil rights 25 complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On June 25, 2021, the Court granted 26 plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 25). The Court has not yet screened 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (See docket). 28 Plaintiff’s Motion requesting the Court to order correctional officials at two different 1 | institutions to provide him his personal and/or legal property is denied. Plaintiffs property is 2 | being held by state officials, not a federal official, and therefore the Court cannot mandate a state 3 | official to take the requested action, even if proper. See Demons vy. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 4 | 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (mandamus relief to compel a state court or official to take or 5 | refrain from some action is frivolous as matter of law). Further, “federal courts do not sit to 6 || supervise state prisons, the administration of which is acute interest to the States.” Meachum y. 7 | Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 (1976); see also Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 51 (1990); Prieser v. 8 | Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 492 (1973). Finally, authorized deprivations of property are 9 | permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably related to a legitimate 10 | penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 11 Admittedly, inmates retain a fundamental interest to access the courts under the First 12 | Amendment. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). To the extent Plaintiff requires his legal 13 | materials to litigate active habeas corpus, criminal appeals, or civil rights actions, he should avail 14 | himself of the procedures established by the respective prisons to obtain his personal and legal 15 | materials. Here, Plaintiff is not under a court ordered deadline in this case. (See docket). 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 Plaintiffs Motion for Court Order (Doc. No. 26) is denied. Dated: _ July 16,2021 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28