(PC) Davis v. Phui ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KELLY DAVIS, Case No. 1:20-CV-00276-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MISCELLANEOUS MOTION 13 v. (Doc. No. 30) 14 DR. PHUI, ET. AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter addressed to the Court. (Doc. No. 30). The 18 Federal Rules dictate the appropriate type of pleadings, including how motions are to be filed 19 with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Letters addressed to the court do not qualify as a motion. 20 Indeed, this Court’s Local Rules provide that “[n]o petition or motion shall be addressed to an 21 individual Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 190(c). In the future, Plaintiff is warned that 22 any future letter addressed to the Court will be returned without filing. 23 Plaintiff states he is undergoing medical procedures at the hospital in San Diego and 24 requests that the Court direct correctional officials not to transfer him to a different prison. (See 25 generally Doc. No. 30). Liberally construed, the Court construes the motion as a motion for 26 mandamus relief. Defendants filed a response to the pleading and in opposition to Plaintiff’s 27 motion for a preliminary injunction on November 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 34). Defendants point out 28 that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is not named as a 1 | defendant in this action. (Ud.). 2 The federal mandamus status provides: “[t]he district courts shall have original 3 | jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the 4 | United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 5 | Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy, however. It is available to compel a federal officer 6 | to perform a duty only if: (1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer is 7 || ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is 8 | available. See Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 Here, no federal officials are involved, only state officials. Federal mandamus relief is not 10 || available for state correctional officials. Further, this Court cannot advise state correctional 11 | officials how to manage its facilities, including the transfer of inmates. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 12 | US. 460, 467 (1983) (correctional officials have broad discretionary authority in the 13 | administration of a prison) (citing Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974)). The decision 14 | whether to transfer an inmate to a different prison is a matter within the discretion of correctional 15 | officials. See generally Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976). Confined individuals do not 16 | have aright remain at any particular correctional institution. Jd. As pointed out by Defendants, 17 | CDCR is not named as a party to this case and there is no evidence that Plaintiff is being 18 || transferred. While it certainly makes logical sense for Plaintiff to remain confined closest to 19 | where he is receiving medical treatment, this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff 20 | the relief he requests. 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 22 Plaintiff's motion (Doc No. 30) is DENIED. 23 | Dated: _ February 14, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 25 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28