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.

Stevens v. Huhtamaki

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 1, 2010

RAY ANTHONY STEVENS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HUHTAMAKI, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The court is in receipt of a request for various forms of relief, which was filed by plaintiff on August 30, 2010. (Dkt. No. 31.) As with a previous request for miscellaneous relief, this request states that plaintiff is incarcerated at the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center ("RCCC"), effective August 10, 2010.

As an initial matter, plaintiff continues to have difficulty providing the court with adequate notice of a change of his address. See E. Dist. Local Rule 183(a). With respect to a previous request made by plaintiff, the court exceeded its obligations and ascertained an address and inmate identification number for plaintiff at RCCC. The court cannot ensure that this address is a correct mailing address for plaintiff, or that plaintiff actually received the court's order addressing plaintiff's previous request. Plaintiff's pending request states that "all correspondence will be sent to RCC bed and building unknown X-ref 1588659." (Dkt. No. 31.)

However, this request does not provide a complete mailing address with which the court can update its docket for all purposes. For the purposes of this order, the court will serve this order and any other appropriate materials related to plaintiff's pending request at the previously identified address. However, the court will not update plaintiff's address on the docket.

Turning to plaintiff's requests, plaintiff essentially makes two requests. First, plaintiff requests the following: "Need You to fax my Pro Per status RCCC." In response to a previous request filed by plaintiff (Dkt. No. 29), the undersigned entered an order confirming that plaintiff is proceeding in the above-captioned matter in propria persona, or pro per. (Dkt. No. 30.) Although not compelled to do so, the court served that order on plaintiff at the address it obtained for plaintiff at RCCC-plaintiff had failed to include an address or inmate identification number with his prior request. The court will not fax the previously entered order to plaintiff at RCCC. In any event, the court would be unable to effectuate such a facsimile transmission because plaintiff has not provided the court with a facsimile number. Accordingly, plaintiff's request will be denied.

Second, plaintiff requests that the court send to him: (1) a copy of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (the "Local Rules"); (2) a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) "some District Court Pleading paper." The undersigned will direct the Clerk of Court to transmit a copy of the Local Rules to plaintiff, which is consistent with the practice of this court insofar as incarcerated plaintiffs are concerned. However, the court will not provide plaintiff with a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which should be available to plaintiff in the law library at RCCC. Furthermore, the court will not supply plaintiff with pleading paper.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request that the court transmit his "pro per status" to RCCC via facsimile is denied.

2. Plaintiff's requests that the court transmit to him a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and district court pleading paper are denied.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of the court's Local Rules to plaintiff at the following address:

STEVENS, RAY X-1588659 HFD014 Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center 12500 Bruceville Road Elk Grove, CA 95757

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve this order on plaintiff at Rio Consumnes Correctional Center, using the address listed above. However, plaintiff's address will not be updated on the court's docket because plaintiff has not provided the court with a complete mailing address. It is plaintiff's obligation to file a notice of change of address with the court and notify defendant of his current address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100901

© 1992-2010 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.