The opinion
1 \
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01214-DAD-EPG
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINITFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING A THIRTY-DAY
13 v. EXTENSION
14 DAVE ROBINSON, et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN
15 Defendants. SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST RE: PAPERS
AND SUPPLIES
16
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
17
(ECF No. 10)
18
19 Plaintiff Sammy R. Quair, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee1 proceeding pro se and in
20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting a thirty-day extension of time to respond
22 to the Court’s screening order issued September 24, 2021. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) Plaintiff also
23 requests orders directing the Kings County Jail law librarian to deliver any requested papers and
24 supplies to him personally and instructing Kings County Jail staff to stop opening and
25 photocopying his legal mail.2 (ECF No. 10 at 4.) For the following reasons, the Court will grant
26
1 Plaintiff’s complaint does not state if he is a pretrial detainee or sentenced prisoner. Given that Plaintiff is
27 incarcerated at Kings County Jail, the Court assumes that Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee.
2 Plaintiff also requests an order directing the Kings County Jail mental health office to bring him in for another
28 evaluation. (See ECF No. 10 at 4.) The Court will address this request separately following issuance of this order.
1 Plaintiff’s request for an extension. The Court will also grant Plaintiff leave to file supplemental
2 briefing in support of his request regarding his papers, supplies, and legal mail.
3 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
4 On September 24, 2021, the Court entered a screening order finding Plaintiff’s complaint
5 sufficiently states a claim to proceed past the screening stage for unconstitutional conditions of
6 confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Dave Robinson and
7 Does 1 through 10, but fails to state any other claims. (ECF No. 9.) The Court gave Plaintiff thirty
8 days to either file a First Amended Complaint, notify the Court that he wants to proceed on the
9 Eighth Amendment claim found cognizable, or notify the Court that he wishes to stand on his
10 complaint. (Id.)
11 Plaintiff’s motion explains that he needs more time to respond to the screening order
12 because Kings County Jail is retaliating against him and throwing away his papers and supplies.
13 (ECF No. 10.) According to Plaintiff,
14 . . . because of ‘conspiracy theory retaliation,’ ‘Quair’s’ papers to and from are
being thrown away and if this honorable court sees my tablet request forms to law
15 library on pin no: 5050325-707070 you will see my many request slips and the
surveillances you will discovery that the law librarian Mrs. Morris is either
16 sending me my requested papers and items and the officers are throwing away my
supplies, or Sgt. Morris is ignoring my requests. I will be amending Sgt. Morris to
17 my retaliation lawsuit because I have informed her to track my supplies to me to
find out who is throwing away my supplies.
18
(ECF No. 10 at 2-3.) Additionally, unidentified individuals are opening and photocopying his
19
mail. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff claims this is because “line #28 is ½ photocopied and your court does not
20
make mistakes like that.” (Id.)
21
Plaintiff requests, in relevant part: 1) a thirty-day extension of time to respond to the
22
screening order; 2) an order instructing the Kings County Jail librarian to start hand delivering
23
requested items to him personally; and 4) an order requiring Kings County Jail staff to stop
24
opening and photocopying Plaintiff’s legal mail. (ECF No. 10 at 3-4.)
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
1 II. EXTENSION REQUEST
2 Having considered the motion, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for a thirty-day
3 extension of time to respond to the screening order. If Plaintiff requests any further extensions of
4 time to respond to the screening order due to the Kings County Jail not providing him with legal
5 supplies, Plaintiff should identify each request he has made for supplies and the response from the
6 jail, if any.3
7 III. PAPERS, SUPPLIES, AND LEGAL MAIL
8 A. Legal Standards
9 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
10 aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.
11 § 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons
12 who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to
13 frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and
14 encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United
15 States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote and citations omitted).
16 “Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non-
17 party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending
18 action.” Hammler v. Haas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48377, *3-4 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2019). See
19 also Mitchell v. Haviland, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109106, *5 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2015) (“Use of
20 the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants,
21 allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner's ability to litigate his case”); Lopez v. Cook,
22 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52198, 2014 WL 1488518 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order
23 under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to provide Plaintiff, who was in the Segregated
24 Housing Unit for non-disciplinary reasons, with two contact visits with his counsel). However,
25 “injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and
26 3 While Plaintiff states that he plans to amend his retaliation claim to add allegations regarding the Kings County Jail
law librarian, Sgt. Morris, it is not clear if Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint in this case or in one of his other
27 pending cases. (See ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff is reminded that he cannot proceed on unrelated claims against different
defendants in a single action, and unrelated claims should be filed as separate case(s). Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2).
28 (See ECF No. 9 at 9-10.)
1 exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v.
2 Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
3 B. Discussion
4 Plaintiff requests an order instructing the Kings County Jail librarian to start hand
5 delivering requested items to him personally. (ECF No. 10 at 4.) Plaintiff also requests an order
6 directing Kings County Jail staff to stop opening and photocopying his legal mail. (Id.) The Court
7 construes these as requests for orders under the All Writs Act.
8 It is not clear from the motion whether the items that are being thrown away are legal
9 supplies and papers. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion does not establish that the destruction of his
10 property or the interference with his legal mail is preventing him from prosecuting this case.
11 The Court will thus allow Plaintiff thirty days to file supplemental briefing in support of
12 his requests for orders directing the Kings County Jail law librarian to deliver papers and supplies
13 to him directly and requiring Kings County Jail staff to stop opening and copying his legal mail.
14 Plaintiff may refer to the legal standards above in preparing his supplemental brief. Plaintiff
15 should address whether the items being thrown away are legal supplies and papers. Plaintiff
16 should also explain how the destruction of his property and interference with his legal mail is
17 impeding his ability to litigate this action.
18 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
19 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the Court’s screening order
21 (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED;
22 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:
23 a. File a First Amended Complaint;
24 b. Notify the Court in writing that he wishes to proceed only on his claim for
25 unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Fourteenth
26 Amendment against Defendant Dave Robinson and Does 1 through 10, who
27 were correctional officers at the Kings County Jail from June 14, 2021 through
28 the present with duties to clean the facility; or
1 c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on this complaint; and
2 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file
3 supplemental briefing in support of his requests for an order directing the Kings
4 County Jail law librarian to deliver requested papers and supplies to Plaintiff directly
5 and for an order directing Kings County Jail staff to stop opening and photocopying
6 his legal mail
7
g IT IS SO ORDERED.
9| Dated: _ November 3, 2021 [spe ey
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28