(PC) Carthen v. Scott ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 TREMANE DARNELL CARTHEN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00227-DAD-EPG (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE TO 10 v. COURT FOR INQUIRY FOR ABOVE-STYLE CASE 11 P. SCOTT, et al., (ECF No. 47) 12 Defendants. 13 14 Tremane Darnell Carthen (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 15 pauperis with this civil rights action. 16 On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to Court for Inquiry for Above-Style Case.” 17 (ECF No. 47). In the filing, Plaintiff states that he has not received any filings in this case since 18 he received the order that was issued on January 10, 2022. Plaintiff asks for an update as to the 19 status of his case. Plaintiff also asks that all future documents and filings be mailed to him via 20 certified mail, with the statement “Open in the Presence of Inmate” stamped on the envelope, 21 because there are issues with how Bureau of Prison officials handle legal mail. Finally, Plaintiff 22 alleges that he is being retaliated against for filing this suit, and states that he is seeking 23 compensation based on the retaliation. 24 As to Plaintiff’s request for a status of this case, the Court notes that Defendants have 25 waived service of process (ECF Nos. 45 & 46), and have until April 18, 2022, to file their 26 responsive pleading(s). 27 As to Plaintiff’s request that documents be sent via certified mail with the statement 28 “Open in the Presence of Inmate” stamped on the envelope, it is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request 1 | appears to be based on the mistaken belief that orders and documents sent by the Court are 2 | considered legal mail. This is not so. Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th 3 | Cir. 2017) (“Mail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal 4 | mail. Accordingly, the First Amendment does not prohibit opening such mail outside the 5 || recipient’s presence.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, Plaintiff cited 6 | to no authority suggesting that the Court should enter any such order. 7 Finally, the Court will not address Plaintiffs allegations that he is being retaliated against 8 || for filing this lawsuit. If Plaintiff believes that Bureau of Prison officials have violated his 9 | constitutional rights by retaliating against him, he may file a separate lawsuit against those 10 | officials. Alternatively, he may file a motion to supplement his complaint in this case, along with 11 || a proposed complaint that is complete in itself, if he believes the claims are sufficiently related. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 8, 2022 hey 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28