The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 KJN P
BROWN,
12
Plaintiff,
13 ORDER
v.
14
DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On September 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a
19 reply to defendants’ response to plaintiff’s objections to the August 26, 2020 findings and
20 recommendations. However, the findings and recommendations provided for objections and a
21 response to the objections. There was no provision for a reply to the response, and plaintiff did
22 not seek leave of court to file such a reply. (ECF No. 111 at 13.) Moreover, on September 25,
23 2020, the district court adopted the findings and recommendations. Therefore, plaintiff’s reply is
24 disregarded as improperly filed.
25 Plaintiff’s reply was accompanied by a motion to file certain medical records under seal.
26 However, because plaintiff’s reply was improperly filed, no medical records are required. Thus,
27 plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to retain the
28 motion (ECF No. 126 at 1-2, 28), but to remove and return plaintiff’s medical records to plaintiff
1 (ECF No. 126 at 3-27). However, in the future, if plaintiff intends to seek to seal medical records,
2 he may wish to first seek leave of court to file such records, itemizing the records and justifying
3 his request to seal such records as explained in the court’s September 11, 2020 order. (ECF No.
4 116.) This requirement is because when plaintiff submits documents to the court, medical records
5 or otherwise, they are scanned into the electronic docket and become part of the public record
6 immediately. Moreover, as explained in the prior order, whether or not medical records will be
7 sealed is not automatic. Plaintiff has put his medical treatment at issue, and there is a strong
8 presumption that judicial records are accessible to the public. Kamakana v. City and County of
9 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
10 Finally, on September 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for a court order to record all of
11 plaintiff’s medical appointments while this action is pending. Plaintiff’s motion is based on his
12 subjective belief that all medical professionals at the California Health Care Facility falsify
13 medical notes “each” time he requests or obtains such records from medical officials, and
14 contends that “there is an out of control custom/practice for CDCR medical officials to willfully
15 falsify notes.” (ECF No. 118 at 2.) Plaintiff sought a stipulation from counsel for defendants,
16 who declined. (ECF No. 118 at 4-7.) Defendants dispute plaintiff’s allegations that any medical
17 records have been falsified. (ECF No. 118 at 4, 5.)
18 Plaintiff’s motion is overbroad and unsupported by any legal authorities. Plaintiff has
19 been provided the standards governing motions for injunctive relief on several occasions, and has
20 failed to address all of the elements required to support his request. Winter v. Natural Resources
21 Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008); (ECF No. 52, 88). As plaintiff has been previously
22 informed, this court does not have jurisdiction over nonparties. (ECF No. 52 at 7.) The pendency
23 of an action does not give the court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth
24 Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.
25 2010). This court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal
26 claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d
27 at 969. Further, requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the
28 Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires that the court find the “relief [sought] is
1 | narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,
2 | and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Id.
3 | Plaintiff's request that the court order that all of plaintiff's future medical appointments be
4 | recorded is overbroad and not narrowly tailored to constitute the least intrusive means necessary
5 | tocorrect the violation of a federal right.
6 For all of the above reasons, and because plaintiffs motion is insufficiently supported, the
7 | motion is denied without prejudice.
8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9 1. Plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 118) is denied;
10 2. Plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 126) is denied without prejudice; and
11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to retain plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 126 at 1-2, 28),
12 | but to remove and return to plaintiff his medical records (ECF No. 126 at 3-27).
13 | Dated: October 19, 2020
i Aectl Aharon
15 KENDALL J. NE
/wilk1338.med UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28