(PC) Warzek v. Valley State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WARZEK, 1:20-cv-00027-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING PRISON OFFICIALS TO ALLOW HIM TO 14 VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., CORRESPOND WITH PLAINTIFFS IN RELATED CASES BE DENIED 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 25.) 16 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 18 19 20 21 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Michael Warzek is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 25 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 26, 2019, fifteen plaintiffs, including Plaintiff 26 Michael Warzek, filed a Complaint commencing this action against Valley State Prison (VSP), 27 et al., for subjecting them to adverse conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth 28 Amendment by serving substandard food in Kosher meals at VSP. (ECF No. 2.) 1 On January 7, 2020, the court issued an order severing the fifteen plaintiffs’ claims . (ECF 2 No. 1.) Each of the fifteen plaintiffs was ordered to file an amended complaint in his own case 3 within thirty days. (Id.) On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Warzek filed the First Amended 4 Complaint in this case. (ECF No. 4.) 5 On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Writ of Mandate in which he requested a 6 court order directing prison officials to allow him to correspond with Plaintiffs in related cases. 7 (ECF No. 25.) 8 II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRESPOND WITH ANOTHER INMATE 9 Inmates may only correspond with one another if they obtain written authorization from 10 the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139. Correspondence by inmates 11 between institutions is connected to legitimate security concerns, such as the possibility of 12 communication of escape plans, plans to arrange violent acts, and improper correspondence 13 between gang members. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2263, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 14 (1987). Regulations of mail may be imposed barring communication with inmates at other penal 15 facilities, to protect the institutional order and security of the facility where the regulation does 16 not deprive prisoners of all means of expression. Id. at 92. The Court recognizes that the 17 judgment of corrections officials with respect to correspondence between prison institutions is 18 “a judgment ‘peculiarly within [their] province and professional expertise,’ [and] should not be 19 lightly set aside by the courts.” Id. at 92–93 (quoting Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94 20 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). 21 Further, the court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff 22 and Defendants, and cannot order prison officials to allow Plaintiff to correspond with other 23 inmates. E.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); 24 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 25 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982); Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th 26 Cir. 2006). “[A] federal court may ... not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before 27 the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 28 1 Plaintiff does not say whether the Plaintiffs in related cases are incarcerated at the same 2 facility as Plaintiff. Importntly, to obtain permission to correspond with another inmate, Plaintiff 3 must follow the policies and procedures in place at the facility where Plaintiff is currently housed. 4 Inmates in California state prisons may initiate requests to correspond with other inmates by 5 contacting their Correctional Counselor. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3139(b). Accordingly, 6 Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. 7 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 The court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s motion directing prison 9 officials to allow him to correspond with other inmates. Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT 10 IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to correspond with Plaintiffs 11 in related cases, filed on April 19, 2022, be DENIED. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 14 (14) days after the date of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file 15 written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 16 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 17 and filed within fourteen (14) days after the date the objections are filed. The parties are advised 18 that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 19 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 20 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 31, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28