(PC) Barnes v. Brunner et al, No. 2:2018cv02449 - Document 51 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/13/2019 RECOMMENDING Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, contained in 46 Brief, be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, 12 No. 2: 18-cv-2449 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS J. BRUNNER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 17 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s 19 request for injunctive relief, contained in his March 6, 2019 letter, be denied. This action proceeds on the original complaint filed September 5, 2018 against defendants 20 21 Brunner, Lopez, Sloan and Castro. Plaintiff alleges that on October 28, 2017, defendants 22 assaulted him at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton, California.1 On February 28, 2019, court records were changed to reflect that plaintiff had been 23 24 transferred to California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). 25 //// 26 27 28 1 On December 7, 2018, this action was referred to the Post-Screening ADR Project and stayed for 120 days. (ECF No. 20.) On March 11, 2019, a settlement conference was held. This action did not settle. On March 13, 2019, the stay was lifted. (ECF No. 50.) 1 1 On February 27, 2019, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that his life was in 2 danger following his transfer to CSP-Sac. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff alleged that his life had been 3 threatened by “all green wall and white supremacist officers.” Plaintiff also alleged that he was in 4 danger from corrupt gang officers. Plaintiff requested that the court order his transfer to Santa 5 Rita County Jail in Dublin, California for protective custody. 6 On March 1, 2019, the undersigned issued an order addressing plaintiff’s February 27, 7 2019 letter. (ECF No. 43.) The undersigned observed that plaintiff’s letter contained no 8 information regarding specific threats made to plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff did not identify any prison 9 officials who allegedly threatened him. Plaintiff also did not specifically describe the threats 10 made to him or when they were made. The undersigned ordered plaintiff to file further briefing 11 in support of his claim that his life was in danger. 12 On March 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a letter in response to the March 1, 2019 order. (ECF 13 No. 46.) In this letter, plaintiff states that his release date is July 18, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that 14 “white supremacist officers and green wall gang officer C/O Hord, C/O Swift, C/O Brennfleck, 15 C/O Lieber, C/O Magana” are holding his package containing his parole release dress outs. 16 In the March 6, 2019 letter, plaintiff also alleges that Correctional Officers Lee, Guffee, 17 Brekenridge, Nyberg, Stuhr, Lestmire, Ramirez, Baker “are all in hate crimes,” and threatened 18 plaintiff’s life by paying inmate Brenner, a white supremacist gang member, to attack plaintiff 19 when plaintiff goes to the group mental health treatment center. Plaintiff alleges that Officers 20 Swift, Stuhr, Nyberg and Hord also paid inmate Garcia to harm plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges 21 that these officers told plaintiff, “We got something for you if you come out of your cell here at 22 CSP-Sac A Yard 1 Building.” 23 In the March 6, 2019 letter, plaintiff also alleges that the officers listed above are having 24 sexual affairs with many female nurses. Plaintiff alleges that the corrupt officers are paying the 25 female mental health doctors to reduce plaintiff’s level of mental health care from “EOP” to 26 “CCMS.” Plaintiff alleges that he fears that he will be returned to California State Prison- 27 Corcoran (“Corcoran”), apparently based on the change in his level of mental health care. 28 Plaintiff alleges that while housed at Corcoran, he was physically assaulted by green wall gang 2 1 officers, who also stole his personal property in retaliation for plaintiff filing a citizen’s 2 complaint. Plaintiff’s March 6, 2019 letter requests that the court order his transfer to the Santa Rita 3 4 County Jail.2 The undersigned construes plaintiff’s March 6, 2019 letter to contain a request for 5 6 injunctive relief. However, no defendants are located at CSP-Sac. Therefore, plaintiff seeks 7 injunctive relief against individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is 8 unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See 9 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 10 The court has some authority to intervene regarding conduct unrelated to the complaint 11 under the All Writs Act. That Act gives federal courts the authority to issue “all writs necessary 12 or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of 13 law.” 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). The United States Supreme Court has authorized the use of the All 14 Writs Act in appropriate circumstances against persons who, “though not parties to the original 15 action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order 16 or the proper administration of justice.” United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 17 (1977). To obtain an order under the All Writs Act, the requested order must be “necessary.” 18 This language requires that the relief requested is not available through some alternative means. 19 Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534 (1999). Plaintiff’s March 6, 2019 letter raises several claims against numerous persons employed 20 21 at CSP-Sac. Due to the scope of these claims, the undersigned finds that they are better addressed 22 in a separate civil rights action. While the undersigned takes plaintiff’s claims seriously, the 23 undersigned recommends that the request for injunctive relief contained in the March 6, 2019 24 letter be denied because the requested relief is available through a separate civil rights action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for injunctive 25 26 27 28 relief, contained in his March 6, 2019 letter (ECF No. 46), be denied. Attached to plaintiff’s March 6, 2019 letter are copies of administrative grievances which appear to raise some of the claims raised in plaintiff’s March 6, 2019 letter. 3 2 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 6 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 7 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: March 13, 2019 9 10 11 12 13 14 Barn2449.inj 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
