” Jackson v. D.C., 254 F.3d. 262, 268 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 (1966)) (italics omitted); see also Stringham v. Bick, No. 05-0644, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79892, at *29 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (following Jackson in issuing a preliminary injunction). The judicial authority cited by the D.C. Circuit in Jackson was based on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See FTC v. Dean Foods, 384 U.S. at 599, 604.

Corp. v. Hanson-Van Winkle-Munning Co., 104 F.2d 856, 861 (4th Cir. 1939) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2202 authorizes a court to grant, “upon the determination of non-infringement, . . . injunctive relief restraining the [patent holder] from harassing [declaratory judgment plaintiff’s] customers with suits and notices of infringement…”) Likewise, the Court also has the authority to enforce its Final Judgment under the All Writs Act, which provides in relevant part that “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). It is well-established that the All Writs Act “empowers a district court to issue injunctions to enforce judgments and to reinforce the effects of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.”

Ordering that he be allowed telephonic access to his counsel to relay and discuss confidential legal information is a remedy that will allow this Court to protect its jurisdiction over this case. B. The Court has the Power to Order All Requested Relief Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 According to Mr. Zuhair – and there is no reason to believe his account is inaccurate – the guards have interfered with this Court’s ability to hear Mr. Zuhair’s habeas petition. This Court’s jurisdiction over Mr. Zuhair’s habeas petition is governed by the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and it has the power to take all measures “necessary and appropriate” to aid that jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1641, including the power to grant the limited relief sought here.

Conclusion For all of the above-stated reasons, the United States of America prays for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 authorizing the Department at the SDC, through competent medical authority, to perform laboratory tests and physical evaluations to monitor and assess Defendant Vitaly Novikov’s clinical condition (i.e., drawing of blood and urinalysis for laboratory testing, physical examination, and administration of medications, as needed), and, if necessary, to restrain Defendant to accomplish the same until such time as Defendant discontinues his hunger strike or until the Court orders otherwise. Case 4:17-cv-00100-LJA Document 3 Filed 05/11/17 Page 10 of 12 11 Further, the United States of America prays for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 authorizing the Department at the SDC, through competent medical authority, to involuntarily administer nutrients to Defendant Vitaly Novikov by nasogastric tube and/or intravenously to sustain the life of Defendant, and, if necessary, to restrain Defendant to accomplish the same until such time as Defendant discontinues his hunger strike or until the Court orders otherwise. For the convenience of the Court, the United States has attached a proposed order should the Court find this motion meritorious.

In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Although Plaintiffs’ Application refers in passing to their request for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), see Pls.’ Mem.

The "All Writs Act," authorizes a federal court to issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The Act has been interpreted to empower a federal court "to issue such commands ... as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained.

A federal court’s jurisdiction to issue a writ of error coram nobis derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes federal courts to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); Morgan, 346 U.S. at 502. Coram nobis relief is only available in the court that issued the criminal judgment.

2001) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 66). Moreover, a “district court has within its equity power the authority to protect its jurisdiction over a receivership estate through the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and through its injunctive powers, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Of course, Case 1:09-cv-01750-GBD Document 626 Filed 04/10/13 Page 13 of 16 1155020.

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1025 (9th Cir. 1998) ; see also In re Piper Funds, Inc. Institutional Government Income Portfolio Litigation, 71 F.3d 298, 300 n. 2 (8th Cir.1995) (“The district court based its injunction on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which has been invoked by federal class action courts to enjoin persons not within the court's jurisdiction from frustrating a court order or court-supervised settlement. See, e.g., In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, 335-38 (2d Cir.1985).

. Moreover, The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides the Court additional authority to award the relief requested here, if more were required.4 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The Act serves as "a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute.