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.

Larry W. Campbell v. Roseville Police Department

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


May 24, 2011

LARRY W. CAMPBELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

This miscellaneous case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Pending before the undersigned is a letter from plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1.) The court has liberally construed the letter as a motion by plaintiff for permission to file a complaint, in keeping with the pre-filing order issued by United States District Judge Frank C. Damrell in Campbell v. DeAmicus, et al., Case No. CIV S-04-1244 FCD JFM PS.

Plaintiff's one-page letter reads, in its entirety, as follows: Dear chief I was informed yesterday by Roseville PD that federal law enforcement would not being (sic) interested in crimes committed against [me] since I am a (sic) ex felon[.]

During the Conversation the Officer admitted he had been recording our conversation without notice to me and/or my permission and I am sure without a court order[.]

I request permission to file a former (sic) complaint against the Officer and the city of Roseville per my understanding of well-settled federal law and federal case law[.]

To make a record of this request I will use a CC list[.] (Doc. No. 1.)

Plaintiff's filing is incomprehensible, his claims are unstated and the precise relief he seeks is unclear. Moreover, in Campbell v. DeAmicus, et al., the assigned District Judge issued an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant and imposed a specific pre-filing order with respect to any further filings by plaintiff. See Campbell v. DeAmicus, et al., Case No. CIV S-04-1244 FCD JFM PS, Doc. No. 51. Specifically, the pre-filing order provides that "[p]laintiff is prohibited from raising in this court any civil rights claims relating to his family law proceedings, . . . and any vexatious litigant order entered in state court proceedings," and that "[p]laintiff is directed to submit a pre-filing request to the duty judge of this court to consider any new federal claims unrelated to plaintiff's family law dispute and/or the state court's vexatious litigant orders." Id. The pre-filing order also directed plaintiff "to include with any pre-filing request a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that the claims raised in his pre-filing request are unrelated to his family law dispute or the state court's vexatious litigant orders," and that "[p]laintiff is required to obtain a court order granting him permission to proceed with such unrelated claims prior to filing such claims in this court." Id.

Here, plaintiff has not stated in his letter that any new federal claims he wishes to present are unrelated to his family law dispute and/or the state court's vexatious litigant orders. Plaintiff has not included a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating that any claims raised in his most recent filing are unrelated to his family law dispute or the state court's vexatious litigant orders. Thus, plaintiff has not complied with the court's pre-filing order.

Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff is requesting permission to proceed with new claims in this court, his request will be denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110524

© 1992-2011 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.