IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 5, 2010
BRIAN S. SEEFELDT, PLAINTIFF,
SOLANO COUNTY DIVISION, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION FOR FILING CUSTODY USM-285 FORMS AND DENYING REQUEST TO BE MOVED INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Brian S. Seefeldt's motions: (1) for an extension of time in which to file the USM-285 forms (Dkt. No. 36); and (2) "Motion to Order Copies." (Dkt. No. 37.)
On December 22, 2009, this court dismissed Plaintiff's case without prejudice for failure to complete the required USM-285 forms and return them to the court in a timely manner. (Dkt. No. 32.) Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he never received the forms from the Clerk's Office. On February 5, 2010, the court granted Plaintiff's motion and instructed the Clerk's Office to mail to the Plaintiff the USM-285 forms, along with a summons, instruction sheet, and a copy of the August 19, 2009 Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff was ordered to complete and return the forms by March 8, 2010, or have his case dismissed.
Plaintiff filed the present motions on February 22, 2010. Plaintiff seeks a sixty-day extension to file the USM-285 forms. He claims that he has been unable to complete the forms because they were misplaced during his recent transfer to Deuel Vocational Institution, as well as that he has been unable to make photocopies of the Second Amended Complaint (as required for service). In addition, he requests that this court transfer him to federal custody and place him in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
Plaintiff alleges in this action that the named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. That is an issue cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to hear that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff's request that the court remove him from state custody, place him in federal custody and place him in the Federal Witness Protection Program is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Decisions regarding placement in the Federal Witness Protection Program are made by the United States Marshals Service and plaintiff should address his concerns to that agency. To the extent that Plaintiff is complaining that he is not being provided adequate protection while in state custody, the court will address that in due course.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for a sixty-day extension of time within which to submit the USM-285 forms is GRANTED. Plaintiff must submit these forms no later than May 3, 2010.
2. Plaintiff's request to be transferred into federal custody and placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program is DENIED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.