Arden

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE

COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH

13 v. CERTAIN COPIES AS A ONE-TIME

COURTESY

14 D. ARDEN, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

15 Defendants. DENY PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

16

(Doc. 56)

17

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

18

19 Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.

20 I. BACKGROUND

21 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for an Injunction Ordering Kern Valley State

22 Prison to Provide Access to his Stored Legal Materials.” (Doc. 54.)

23 On March 11, 2026, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff’s

24 Motion for Injunctive Relief. (Doc. 55.)

25 On March 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed his second motion seeking injunctive relief related to

26 his stored legal materials. (Doc. 56.)

27 Once again, the Court finds a response by Defendants unnecessary.

1 II. DISCUSSION

2 Plaintiff’s Motion

3 Plaintiff declares a settlement conference is set for April 16, 2026, in this matter. (Doc. 56

4 at 1.) He states that criminal proceedings “which were previously subject of a stay” have resolved

5 in his favor, therefore, he now has “complete and present causes of action for federal malicious

6 prosecution of evidence.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends Defendants brutally assaulted him, fracturing

7 his jaw and knocking out teeth, while he was handcuffed behind his back. (Id.) Then Defendants

8 “caused 4 false retaliatory criminal charges by fabricating reports to the DA,” resulting in

9 Plaintiff facing a sentence of 25-years-to-life “on each charge” because he has “a ‘super strike’

10 commitment offense.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he intends to amend his complaint immediately “if a 6

11 figure settlement isn’t reached” at the settlement conference but does not “currently possess the

12 operative complaint in order to prepare for settlement conference or work on my amendment”

13 because it is in his stored legal material. (Id.)

14 Plaintiff further declares that in July 2023, he arrived at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP)

15 from California State Prison, Corcoran, with 12 boxes of legal property, subsequently reduced to

16 9 boxes. (Doc. 56 at 1.) KVSP limits him to 7 cubic feet of storage in his cell and thus Plaintiff

17 has 4 of the 9 boxes; KVSP staff stored the remaining 5 boxes. (Id.) Plaintiff declares that

18 although he is entitled to access his legal materials “once per week on a box-for-box basis,”

19 KVSP staff has not provided access in over one year. (Id.) Plaintiff “filed a grievance on the

20 matter which staff have never responded to [Exhibit A1],” that he filed “a similar injunction” in

21 another matter pending in this court “which prompted staff to provide one time access” in late

22 September 2024, and that he filed another grievance believing one box of materials was missing,

23 receiving a response from officials that a schedule would be worked out, but that “never

24 transpired [Exhibit B]2.” (Id. at 1-2.)

25

26 1 Exhibit A, Log No. 528174, is dated February 27, 2024, and was received by KVSP on March 1, 2024. (Doc. 56 at

5-8.)

27

2 Exhibit B, Log No. 632338, is dated September 29, 2024, and was responded to by KVSP on November 20, 2024.

1 Next, Plaintiff declares he filed a reasonable accommodation request, seeking

2 appointment of an Inmate Advisory Council representative “so issues like this could be

3 informally resolved with staff.” (Doc. 56 at 2.) The request “was never responded to [Exhibit

4 C3].” (Id.)

5 Further, Plaintiff declares Defendants have submitted objections and “nonresponses” to

6 his request for production of documents requiring him to file a motion to compel.4 (Doc. 56 at 2.)

7 Additionally, Plaintiff states Defendants have served a discovery request related to the exhaustion

8 of his administrative remedies,5 but he “cannot respond because [the] grievance relative to this

9 matter is also in [his] stored legal materials.” (Id.) Plaintiff declares he is unable to litigate this

10 action effectively without weekly access to his legal materials. (Id.)

11 Applicable Legal Standards

12 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in

13 aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.

14 § 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons

15 who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to

16 frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and

17 encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United

18 States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote & citations omitted).

19 “Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non-

20 party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending

21 action.” Hammler v. Haas, No. 2:15-CV-2266 JAM AC P, 2019 WL 11880444, at *2 (E.D. Cal.

22 Mar. 22, 2019); see Lopez v. Cook, No. 2:03-CV-1605 KJM DAD, 2014 WL 1488518, at *2-4

23 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to

24 provide Plaintiff, who was in the Segregated Housing Unit for non-disciplinary reasons, with two

25

3 Exhibit C, Log No. 814201, is dated October 3, 2025, was received by prison officials that same date. (Doc. 56 at

26 15-16.)

27 4 The current deadline for filing a motion to compel is September 29, 2026. (Doc. 50 at 2.)

5

1 contact visits with his counsel). However, “injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used

2 sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at

3 issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations & internal

4 quotation marks omitted).

5 Analysis

6 In recommending Plaintiff’s previous motion be denied, this Court stated, “it is unclear

7 whether Plaintiff has specifically requested access via a ‘box-for-box exchange.’ He offers no

8 details concerning the date or dates he requested such access and offers no documentation in

9 support of his motion.” (See Doc. 55 at 3.) Therefore, the Court “[could] not conclude there exist

10 critical or exigent circumstances warranting the relief requested. Other than vague and conclusory

11 assertions that he is unable to effectively litigate this case without his legal materials, the

12 information provided is insufficient to conclude that KVSP officials are ‘impeding the prisoner-

13 plaintiff's ability to litigate his pending action.’” (Id. at 3-4) (quoting Hammler, 2019 WL

14 11880444, at *2.)

15 Here, the Court once again finds Plaintiff has not established critical or exigent

16 circumstances exist warranting the relief requested. Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s motion concerns

17 circumstances existing more than two years ago. Exhibit B concerns circumstances existing

18 approximately 17 months ago. The Court finds neither establish critical or exigent circumstances.

19 Exhibit C, a reasonable accommodation request seeking the “proper appointment of

20 inmate advisory council members,” submitted about six months ago and indicating that “R&R

21 staff [are] storing [his] excess legal property but refusing to give [him] the required access to

22 make a box-for-box exchange every week,” does not persuade the Court that Plaintiff has

23 established a critical and exigent circumstance. Notably, Plaintiff’s declaration does not indicate

24 he has made a recent request, or any request since October 2025, for access on a box-for-box

25 exchange basis to his legal materials. Plaintiff’s evidence does not demonstrate that “non-party

26 correctional officials are impeding” his present ability to litigate this action. Hammler, 2019 WL

27 11880444, at *2. Simply put, it is not “indisputably clear” that Plaintif’s rights are at issue and the

1 the most critical and exigent circumstances.” Brown, 533 U.S. at 1303.

2 Moreover, a review of CM/ECF reveals Plaintiff has three other open cases in this district,

3 although those actions do not appear to involve imminent deadlines such that it is clear Plaintiff’s

4 inability to possess more than four boxes of his legal materials is affecting his ability to

5 effectively litigate this action. More specifically, in Harris v. Diaz, No. 1:21-cv-800-JLT-FJS,

6 Defendant’s pending merits-based summary judgment motion was fully briefed as of May 29,

7 2024. In Harris v. Burns, et al., No. 1:24-cv-1176-JLT-CDB, a scheduling order issued February

8 13, 2026, and no motions are pending. Lastly, in Harris v. Bushar, No. 1:25-cv-1347, Plaintiff’s

9 original complaint has not yet been screened.

10 The Court will recommend Plaintiff’s motion be denied. It will, however, direct the Clerk

11 of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the operative complaint, screening order, and the

12 order holding that this action proceeds only on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force

13 claims against Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia, Pasillas, and Perez, and First Amendment

14 retaliation claims against Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia and Pasillas, as a one-time

15 courtesy, to assist Plaintiff in preparing for the settlement conference scheduled for April 16,

16 2026, and to assist him in preparing any intended motion for leave to file an amended complaint

17 before the deadline set forth in the scheduling order.

18 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

19 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff

20 with copies of the first amended complaint (Doc. 7), screening order (Doc. 11), and the Order

21 Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Claims and Defendants (Doc. 14), as a one-

22 time courtesy.

23 Further, for the reasons stated above, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

24 Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction (Doc. 56) be DENIED.

25 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

26 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

27 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written

1 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without

2 | leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the

3 | Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the

4 | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise

5 || reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be

6 | disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28

7 | US.C. § 636(b)()(C).

8 A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time

9 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th

10 Cir. 2014).

11 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

'2 | Dated: _ April 1, 2026 | Word by

13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6B