Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PLUMMER v. LAMARQUE

United States District Court, N.D. California


August 9, 2004.

WILLIAM PIERCE PLUMMER, Plaintiff,
v.
Warden A.A. LAMARQUE; et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: THELTON HENDERSON, Senior District Judge

JUDGMENT

This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINED "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE".] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

  William Pierce Plummer, a prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it with leave to amend so that plaintiff could attempt to cure several deficiencies identified by the court. Plaintiff then filed numerous documents in this action, one of which appears to be an amended complaint, i.e., the document filed June 4, 2004 (docket # 9). The court construes that document as an amended complaint.

  The court has reviewed the amended complaint and finds that it does not cure the defects identified in the court's earlier order of dismissal with leave to amend. A couple of points made by plaintiff in his amended complaint are worthy of note. First, he appears to contend that the constitutional right of access to the courts includes a right to send documents to his friends. He errs. Second, he appears to contend that mailroom staff's opening of mail to him from this court on May 10, 2004 violated his constitutional right of access to the court exhaustion of administrative remedies problem discussed earlier in this order.

  Plaintiff also filed a "Motion For Release Of Pro Se Legal Materials; Motion To Transfer C04-778 To United States Supreme Court." The motions are DENIED. (Docket # 11.) The court does not understand what material plaintiff wants released or under what authority the court may order such release. The court also does not have the authority or desire to transfer this action to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  Finally, in light of the dismissal of the action, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. (Docket # 2.)

  This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk shall close the file.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20040809

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.