IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 20, 2010
MALIK JONES, PLAINTIFF,
C. STIEFERMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are two motions filed by Plaintiff pro se (Docs. 89, 97). Plaintiff has also filed other documents with the court pro se since being represented by counsel. These motions and documents were submitted by Plaintiff pro se, without the advice or assistance of counsel. Plaintiff is cautioned that due to the acceptance of representation by counsel, Plaintiff is to communicate with the court through counsel. If Plaintiff has something he would like to file, such as one of his motions, he should seek advice from counsel on how best to proceed.
Plaintiff's two current motions are both entitled "Motion of Imminent Danger." In these documents, Plaintiff indicates various individuals, including those who are not defendants to this action, are mistreating him out of retaliation. To the extent Plaintiff is complaining about the actions of non-defendants, this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). As to his other complaints, that defendants "Vance, Pliler, their agents, family members and succeors [sic]" are depriving him of his mobility assistive devises, Plaintiff shall seek assistance from his counsel to determine whether a proper motion is appropriate.
Plaintiff is further cautioned against filing pro se documents now that he is represented by counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HERE BY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's pro se motions (Docs. 89, 97) are disregarded; and
2. Plaintiff is cautioned against filing pro se documents without counsel.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.