IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2012
DAVID LEONARD BAKER,
CSP WARDEN, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 9.)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR HYPNOTIST, EQUIPMENT, MAILING, AND COURT TRIAL FOR ACQUITTAL
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR ADDRESS OF COURT OF APPEALS
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
David Leonard Baker ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 29, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge in this action, and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 3.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
On March 29, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty days. (Doc. 8.) On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed objections, requesting that the Court provide him with a court-appointed hypnotist to assist him in making reenactment transcripts to obtain an acquittal ruling. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff also requests an audio video phone recorder, transcriber, and mailing. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests a court trial for acquittal. Or, in the alternative, Plaintiff requests the Court to provide him with the address of the United States Court of Appeal. Id.
The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for the appointment of a hypnotist or for purchase of the equipment and mailing sought by Plaintiff in the instant request. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for a court-appointed hypnotist, an audio video phone recorder, transcriber, and mailing shall be denied. With respect to Plaintiff's request for a court trial for acquittal, such relief is not available in this section 1983 civil rights action and must also be denied. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff's request for the address of the United States Court of Appeals shall be granted. In addition, Plaintiff shall be granted an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint, pursuant to the Court's order of March 29, 2012.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for a court trial for acquittal is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's request for a court-appointed hypnotist, audio video phone recorder, transcriber, and mailing is DENIED;
3. Plaintiff's request to be provided with the address of the Court of Appeals is GRANTED, as follows:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
4. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended complaint, pursuant to the Court's order of March 29, 2012;
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; and
6. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.