The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 L.C. CUNNINGHAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01508-AWI-EPG (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
13 v. MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNDER THE
ALL WRITS ACT BE DENIED
14 M. MARTINEZ, et al.,
(ECF No. 72)
15 Defendants.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS
16
17
18 L.C. Cunningham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20 On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed what the Court construes as a motion for an order under
21 the All Writs Act. (ECF No. 72). On May 19, 2021, the Warden filed a response. (ECF No. 76).
22 On June 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 81).
23 For the reasons described below, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for an
24 order under the All Writs Act be denied.
25 I. LEGAL STANDARDS
26 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
27 aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.
28
1 § 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons
2 who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to
3 frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and
4 encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United
5 States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote and citations omitted).
6 “Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non-
7 party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending
8 action.” Hammler v. Haas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48377, *3-4 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2019). See
9 also Mitchell v. Haviland, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109106, *5 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2015) (“Use of
10 the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants,
11 allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner’s ability to litigate his case”); Lopez v. Cook,
12 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52198, 2014 WL 1488518 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order
13 under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to provide Plaintiff, who was in the Segregated
14 Housing Unit for non-disciplinary reasons, with two contact visits with his counsel). However,
15 “injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and
16 exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v.
17 Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
18 II. ANALYSIS
19 Plaintiff’s motion will be denied because Plaintiff has failed to show that staff at Kern
20 Valley State Prison are preventing him from litigating this action.
21 In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that he has access to the law library, but he is not able to
22 use books. Instead, Plaintiff appears to allege that his institution of confinement has an email
23 system, but that system is not working for him and he is unable to research relevant law.
24 In the Warden’s response, the Warden does not dispute that the email system is not
25 working for Plaintiff. Instead, the Warden argues that Plaintiff has adequate access to legal
26 research materials because “Plaintiff may still request PLU status” and “may continue to use the
27 facility law library to conduct his legal research. The facility has a wide variety of materials
28 available on both the law library computers and in printed materials.” (ECF No. 76, p. 3).
1 In his reply, Plaintiff states that he now has access to use the law library computers and
2 “that this part of [his] troubles regarding [his] legal research has been solved by the KVSP
3 library.” (ECF No. 81, p. 3). However, Plaintiff alleges he only has two hours twice a week to
4 conduct research, and this is not enough time.1
5 “[I]njunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most
6 critical and exigent circumstances,” Brown, 533 U.S. at 1303 (citation and internal quotation
7 marks omitted), and Plaintiff has failed to show that such circumstances exist here. Plaintiff now
8 has access to the law library for approximately four hours a week, and he is able to research
9 relevant law. Thus, Plaintiff is not being prevented from litigating this action and his motion for
10 an order under the All Writs Act should be denied.
11 The Court notes that if Plaintiff needs additional time to comply with a deadline due to
12 limited access to the law library, Plaintiff may file a motion for an extension of time to comply
13 with that deadline.
14 III. RECOMMENDATION
15 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an
16 order under the All Writs Act (ECF No. 72) be DENIED.
17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge
18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
19 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
20 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
21 Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed
22 within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections.
23 \\\
24 \\\
25
1 Plaintiff also alleges that his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment is being violated
26
and that he is being retaliated against. As discussed in these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has not shown
that he is being prevented from litigating this case. If Plaintiff believes that prison officials (who do not appear to be
27
the defendants in this action) are otherwise violating his constitutional rights, he may file a separate action against
those officials.
28
1 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result
2 | in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
3 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5} Dated: _ June 22, 2021 [Jee ey
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28