UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 26, 2012
MAURICE JUNIOUS, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF MARCH 9, 2012 (Doc. 19.) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 20, 2012. (Doc. 1.) Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's objections to the Court's order of March 9, 2012. (Doc. 19.)
On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9.) On March 2, 2012, Plaintiff lodged exhibits to the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13.) On March 9, 2012, the Court entered an order returning the lodged exhibits to Plaintiff, advising Plaintiff that under Local Rule 220 he is not permitted to submit exhibits to the First Amended Complaint after the First Amended Complaint is filed. (Doc. 14.) Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and was required to either file a Second Amended Complaint, or notify the court that he does not wish to amend the complaint, within thirty days. Id. On March 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections to the court's order. (Doc. 19.)
II. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff asserts that the Fresno court made a "Judicial and Clarical [sic] Error" in issuing its order of March 9, 2012. (Doc. 19 at 1.)
First, Plaintiff complains that when he filed the First Amended Complaint, the court did not follow his instructions to remove pages from the original complaint and attach them to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is advised that when he submits a pleading to the court, it must be complete in itself pursuant to Local Rule 220. Thus, Plaintiff may not submit a document to the court expecting the court to alter it according to his instructions. If Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint, it must be complete in itself, without reference to any prior complaint.
Second, Plaintiff claims that he mailed his exhibits to the Sacramento division of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California ("Sacramento court"), on or about February 28, 2012, for his Sacramento case 2:11-cv-03277-EFB, and he does not understand how the documents ended up in Fresno. According to the court's record, Plaintiff has at least one other case pending at the Sacramento court, case 2:11-cv-03277-EFB. To avoid confusion, Plaintiff should write only one case number on his documents. The court notes that Plaintiff has been writing both the Sacramento case number and the Fresno case number on his documents submitted for filing. If Plaintiff follows the court's instruction and writes only one case number on his documents, there should be no confusion about where, and in which of Plaintiff's cases, Plaintiff's documents should be filed.
Third, Plaintiff complains that he never received conformed copies of his complaints from the Fresno court. Plaintiff is advised that the Clerk does not ordinarily provide free copies of case documents to parties. Plaintiff's original Complaint was filed on January 20, 2012 (Document 1), and his First Amended Complaint was filed by the Court on February 8, 2012 (Document 9). The Clerk would not have returned conformed copies of the complaints to Plaintiff unless he submitted two copies and a large self-addressed envelope with sufficient postage to mail back a conformed copy. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk's Office at this Court upon written request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the Court has granted leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitled him to free copies of documents from the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. Plaintiff's original Complaint is seventy-five pages long, and his First Amended Complaint is three pages long. To request a copy at this juncture, Plaintiff must submit a request in writing to the Clerk, a large self-addressed envelope affixed with sufficient postage, and prepayment of copy costs to the Clerk. If Plaintiff only requires a copy of the face page of a complaint, he should indicate this in his written request. Plaintiff is advised that in the future, he should keep a copy of any document he submits to the Court.
Fourth, Plaintiff requests an immediate ruling on his motions for preliminary injunctive relief filed on January 20, 2012 and March 23, 2012. The court shall rule on Plaintiff's motions in due time. Plaintiff is advised that there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the court, and delays are inevitable despite the court's best efforts. Plaintiff can be assured that he will receive a copy of all orders issued in his case as long as he keeps the court apprised of his current address.
Plaintiff indicates in the objections that he wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file the Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file a Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to the court's order of March 9, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.