(PC) Jones v. Ochoa ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAQUICE JONES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00038-DAD-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 12 FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 13 (ECF No. 44) 14 VALOR OCHOA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Jaquice Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On September 28, 2021, Defendants filed an objection to producing certain documents that 20 the Court ordered them to produce. (ECF No. 38). On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion 21 requesting that the Court reconsider its order denying Plaintiff a copy of the witness statements. 22 (ECF No. 44). 23 As to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff misunderstands what occurred. 24 Plaintiff states that he received an order from the Court stating that “(1) the Confidential 25 Supplement shall be redacted sufficient to obscure the statements made by inmate witnesses; (2) 26 Plaintiff may review the Confidential Supplement, but may not possess a copy of the document.” 27 (ECF No. 44, p. 1). Plaintiff notes that the order was not signed or dated, and that the certificate 28 of service is signed by an employee of the Office of the Attorney General. een eee EE IE IIE ES ISR ISD II IED 1 The reason the order is not dated or signed, and that the certificate of service was signed by 2 | an employee of the Office of the Attorney General, is that the order Plaintiff received is a 3 | proposed order. That is, it is an order that defense counsel wants the Court to issue. The order 4 | was not issued by the Court, and the Court has not yet ruled on Defendants’ objection. Thus, 5 | there is nothing for the Court to reconsider. 6 As to Defendants’ objection, the Court has issued findings and recommendations, 7 || recommending that Defendants’ motion to stay be granted. (ECF No. 45). Therefore, the Court 8 | will not address Defendants’ objection until the case resumes or the district judge declines to 9 | adopt the findings and recommendations. While the Court is denying Plaintiffs motion for 10 || reconsideration, to the extent the filing includes Plaintiff's response to Defendants’ objection, the 11 | Court will consider it when ruling on Defendants’ objection.! 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is 13 | DENIED. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | Dated: November 10, 2021 [Jee Sy □ 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 2] ' Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration also includes allegations unrelated to Defendants’ objection, including that Plaintiff is worried about his safety because a non-defendant was given information about this case, that Plaintiff 22 is worried that Defendants are using California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) resources to spy on Plaintiff, that the proposed order was opened by prison staff, and that prison staff are not properly processing 23 mail sent to Plaintiff by his family. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to suggest that he is in danger or that he is unable to prosecute this 24 case due to interference from prison staff. There is also no evidence that Defendants are using CDCR resources to spy on Plaintiff (the order that was opened by CDCR staff was sent by Defendants and is publicly accessible on the 25 Court’s docket). The Court also notes that, even if the order were sent by the Court, it would not constitute legal mail. “Mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As to Plaintiff’s 26 allegations that mail from his family is not being processed correctly, those allegations have no relationship to the claims proceeding in this case. If Plaintiff believes his rights are being violated by non-defendants, he may file a 27 separate lawsuit. 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