(PC) Dalke v. King

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSHUA JASON DALKE, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00534-AWI-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. ) FOR ACCESS TO WITNESS INFORMATION KING CLARK, et al., ) (ECF No. 68) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Joshua Jason Dalke is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for access to witness information, filed February 17, 2021.

21 California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3139 governs correspondence between inmates, parolees, and probationers. It provides in part: 23 (a) Inmates shall obtain written authorization from the Warden/ Regional Parole Administrator or their designee/assigned probation officer, person in charge of the County Jail and/or 24 other State Correctional Systems, at a level not less than Correctional Captain/Facility Captain or Parole Agent III, to correspond with any of the following: 26 (1) Inmates under the jurisdiction of any county, state or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency. (2) Persons committed to any county, state or federal program as a civil addict.

1 (3) Persons on parole or civil addict outpatient status under the jurisdiction of any county, stat 5 or federal, juvenile or adult correctional agency.

3 (4) Persons on probation.

4 || Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15, § 3139.

5 As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to identify why he needs communication with certain inmat || witnesses is necessary at this time, as the case is not set for trial and discovery just opened. In || addition, Plaintiff has not indicated whether he has availed himself, or attempted to avail himself, of g || the process provided by the California Code of Regulations to obtain approval to correspond with his || potential third-party inmate witness. See Cal. Code of Regs. tit. 15, § 3139(b) (“Inmates may initiate || requests to correspond with the above by contacting their Correctional Counselor I (CCI).”) Howeve || even if Plaintiff has adequately pursued the prison administrative procedures for authorization to || communicate with inmates at other prisons he has not shown this court that any such communication: || are necessary to prosecute this action. See Puckett v. Bailey, No. 1:10-cv—2145 LJO GBC (PC), 201 || WL 1196488, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) (denying plaintiff's motion to correspond with inmate || witnesses because he failed to show the prospective witnesses had relevant knowledge); Tilei v. Wan || No. 1:06-cv-0776 OWW GSA, 2011 WL 121552, at *7 (E.D.Cal. Jan.13, 2011) (same). Moreover, || Plaintiff is advised cautioned that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone othe || than plaintiff and defendants. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 ||(1969). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a court order to access witness information is denied.

21 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.

A (ee 22 pated: __ February 18, 2021 OF 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE