UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 28, 2011
MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
D. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS
(ECF Nos. 57, 61, 62 & 63) Plaintiff Michael D. Harrison ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this case; no other parties have appeared. (ECF No. 7.)
Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's December 15, 2010 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 57); (2) Plaintiff's January 10, 2011 Motion for Information (ECF No. 61); (3) Plaintiff's February 4, 2011 Motion Requesting Entitlement (ECF No. 62); and (4) Plaintiff's February 4, 2011 Motion for Transfer (ECF No. 63). Each of these motions will be addressed in turn below.
I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
On December 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Before the Court addressed this Motion, the Court screened Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and ordered him to either file a fourth amended complaint or indicate his willingness to proceed on the claims found cognizable by the Court. (ECF No. 58.) On January 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 60.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot.
II. MOTION FOR INFORMATION
On January 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Information and attached documents that he asks the Court to consider in conjunction with his Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 61.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Information and will consider the attached documents as part of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint.
III. MOTION REQUESTING ENTITLEMENT
On February 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Entitlement in which Plaintiff asks that the Court retitle the docket in this case because D. Adams, the first Defendant listed on the docket, and therefore the name appearing in the case caption, is not named in his Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 62.) These comments aside, D. Adams is the first named Defendant in Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 60.) If Plaintiff wishes to dismiss his claims against D. Adams, he can so move or file an amended complaint that omits Adams. But until that time, Adams will remain as the lead Defendant in the case caption.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Entitlement is DENIED.
IV. MOTION FOR FEDERAL PLACEMENT
On February 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Federal Placement Under FRCP Rule 78. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff contends that the illegal actions of prison officials at Corcoran are causing him such significant harm that the Court should order that he be transferred to federal custody "never to be brought back for any reason pluss [sic] have defendants pay for all related cost of the transfer and housing and medical and all cost during federal placement." (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff cites Title 15, Section 3379(a)(1)(7) as the authority for the Court to order that Plaintiff be transferred to federal prison. The Court has reviewed the cited authority and concludes that it entitles CDCR to transfer Plaintiff to federal prison but does not authorize the Court to so order the transfer. Plaintiff also cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. It does not authorize the Court to order that Plaintiff be transferred. If Plaintiff can provide the Court with a citation to legal authority authorizing the Court to order the transfer Plaintiff requests, the Court will consider same. For now, Plaintiff's Motion for Transfer is DENIED.
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 57) is DENIED as moot;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Information (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Entitlement (ECF No. 62) is DENIED; and
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Transfer (ECF No. 63) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.