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.

Miller v. California State Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 9, 2009

ERNEST MILLER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER DISREGARDING OBJECTION (Doc. 75)

Plaintiff Ernest Miller, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 15, 2008. The action was proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed September 15, 2008, against Defendant Rodriguez for interference with Plaintiff's mail and for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Vikjord, Hernandez, Price, Freshcura, and Brandon for withholding Plaintiff's outgoing mail in violation of the First Amendment; against Defendants Vikjord, Hernandez, and Price for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and against all six named defendants for denial of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 8, 2009, Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust was granted, and judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on September 16, 2009.

On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed an objection to the dismissal of this action on the ground that defense counsel has a conflict of interest. Plaintiff also asserts that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, possibly in response to the appellate court's order of September 29, 2009, requiring Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full or show cause why his in forma pauperis status should not be revoked. 28 U.S. C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff's objection to the dismissal of this action on the ground that a conflict of interest exists because Deputy Attorney General Matthew Kubicek is defense counsel in two actions brought by Plaintiff is without merit.

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to argue that he falls under the imminent danger exception of section 1915(g), that argument must be made to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not this court.

Plaintiff's objection, filed October 5, 2009, is HEREBY ORDERED DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091009

© 1992-2009 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.