Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-00259-BAM (PC)
05-16-2019
JAMES TROTTER, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN PFEJEFER, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF (ECF No. 32)
Plaintiff James Trotter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for relief, filed on May 10, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) Initially, Plaintiff asserts that he feels held back by an illegal case that is not his, he has "been down" 29 years, and that, in Case No. B081130, he was never given a trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, it has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of their confinement in a section 1983 action, and that their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005).
Second, Plaintiff asserts that, since the ruling issued in Coleman v. Newsom, Case No. 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB, is not being followed, Folsom State Prison is so overcrowded that prisoners cannot get program yard, showers, dayroom, library, religious services, and single-cell housing. However, Plaintiff cannot enforce any of the court orders issued in Coleman in this action. Instead, if Plaintiff wants to enforce a court order issued in Coleman, Plaintiff needs to file a motion to enforce a court order in the Coleman action itself. Hook v. Ariz. Dept. of Corr., 972 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1992) ("A district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgments, including consent decrees."); see also Skelly v. Dockweiler, 75 F. Supp. 11, 17 (S.D. Cal. 1947) (noting that a court may choose not to exercise its jurisdiction when another court having jurisdiction over the same matter has entertained it and can achieve the result sought to be achieved here).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief, (ECF No. 32), is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16 , 2019
/s/ Barbara A . McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE