UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2012
MALCOLM Y. WRIGHT,
WARDEN SMITH, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (Doc. 20.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE DECLARATION AS DIRECTED BY THIS ORDER
Plaintiff Malcolm Y. Wright ("Plaintiff") is an inmate currently in North Carolina state custody who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This action now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed on January 13, 2011. (Doc. 10.) On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification, which is now before the Court. (Doc. 20.)
In the motion for clarification, Plaintiff claims that he is unable to comply with the Court's order of January 5, 2012, which requires him to provide the Court with four copies of the Amended Complaint to initiate service of process, because the North Carolina Department of Corrections ("NCDC") refuses to make copies for him. Plaintiff requests the Court to consider issuing an order to the NCDC to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to have copies made at his own expense.
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with sufficient evidence that he is unable to obtain copies of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff should be able to obtain copies through the NCDC by making a written request for assistance. Therefore, Plaintiff shall be required to file a declaration with the Court, signed under penalty of perjury, explaining his efforts to obtain copies and providing documentary evidence that the NCDC refuses to provide him with the opportunity to have copies made at his own expense to enable him to litigate this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a declaration signed under penalty of perjury explaining his efforts to obtain copies of the Amended Complaint and providing documentary evidence that the NCDC refuses to provide him with the opportunity to have copies made at his own expense to enable him to litigate this action; and
2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.