Sekerke v. Olsen
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruben B. Brooks (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, moved for a standing order requiring state prison and county jail officials to allow him to bring legal property and access a law library during a transfer. The court denied the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the state officials who were not parties to the federal action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for a Standing Order to Bring Property from State Prison to County Jail While Out to Court denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the state prison and county jail officials who are not parties to the lawsuit. A federal court cannot issue orders compelling non-parties to act, particularly when those non-parties are state officials acting in their official capacity regarding state custody and procedures. The cited precedents support the conclusion that the court has no authority to direct the handling of the plaintiff's legal materials or housing by non-party state entities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the fundamental principle that a court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it. Since the state officials responsible for the plaintiff's transfer, housing, and property access were not named as defendants in this federal case, the court correctly declined to issue an order binding them. The reliance on district court precedent from the same district is appropriate for this procedural determination.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, Case No.: 20cv1045-JO(RBB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR A STANDING ORDER TO BRING PROPERTY 14 DANE OLSEN, etc., et al., FROM STATE PRISON TO 15 Defendants. COUNTY JAIL WHILE OUT TO COURT [ECF NO. 41] 16 17 On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff Keith Wayne Sekerke, a prisoner incarcerated at 18 Valley State Prison, filed a Motion for a Standing Order to Bring Property from State 19 Prison to County Jail While Out to Court [ECF No. 41]. Plaintiff states that he will be 20 “sent back to County Jail to go to Superior Court most likely in January 2023” for further 21 proceedings on a criminal matter. (Pl.’s Mot. 2, ECF No. 41.) He requests that the Court 22 issue an order (1) ensuring that he will be able to bring his legal property with him and 23 (2) requiring that he be housed in the Central Jail with access to the law library. (Id.) 24 Defendant Lt. Adam Arkwright filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on December 13, 25 2022 [ECF No. 42]. 26 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over state prison 27 officials who are not parties to this action. See, e.g., Poslof v. Martel, Case No.: 3:18-cv- 28 1 761-MMA-AGS, 2019 WL 2451368, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2019) (“Most importantly, 2 Court does not have jurisdiction over the individuals who have custody and control of 3 || Plaintiff's legal materials.”); see also Marshall v. Rain, Civil No. 04cv403-L(WMc), 4 ||2008 WL 3851551, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2008) (“The Court has no authority to issue 5 ||a preliminary injunction ordering non-parties, the California Medical Facility or its 6 || librarian, to provide Plaintiff with . . . library access.”). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: December 29, 2022 ! 2 4 1 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28