1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID A. DEPONTE, No. 2:24-cv-1262 DJC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BOWMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to

. On September 20, 2024, this action was referred to the Post-Screening ADR 19 Project and stayed for 120 days. (ECF No. 52.) This action is set for a settlement conference on 20 March 19, 2025. (ECF No. 59.) On December 3, 2024, the stay in this action was extended to 21 March 19, 2025. (ECF No. 60.) 22 On January 16, 2025, plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Compel CDCR to Follow 23 Attorney General’s Order.” (ECF No. 64.) In this motion, plaintiff appears to allege that prison 24 officials at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) are retaliating against plaintiff for filing the 25 instant action and for filing grievances related to claims raised in the instant action. (Id.) 26 Because this action is stayed, no orders will issue in response to plaintiff’s motion to compel filed 27 January 16, 2025. This Court also observes that the only named defendant in this action is Jessica 28 Bowman, and the alleged deprivations occurred at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). 1 || (ECF No. 35 at 1.) Even were this Court to consider plaintiff's motion to compel filed January 2 | 16, 2025, plaintiff's motion would be denied because plaintiff seeks relief against MCSP prison 3 || officials who are not parties to this action. This Court is unable to issue an order against 4 || individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine 5 || Research, Inc.,

(1969). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 64) 7 || is disregarded because this action 1s stayed. 8 9 || Dated: January 22, 2025 4 aA 10 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 || Deponte1262.ord(2)/2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28