Plaintiff, an inmate at the Colusa County Jail, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Doc. No. 9.
On November 14, 2011, the court ordered plaintiff to submit a new application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court also dismissed plaintiff's complaint and granted him leave to file an amended complaint. Before the court is plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, amended complaint, request for the appointment of counsel, and multiple motions seeking leave to add another plaintiff to this action
I. Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
In the court's November 14, 2011 order, plaintiff's October 6, 2011 forma pauperis application was denied because plaintiff did not use this court's application form and failed to submit a certified copy of his jail trust account statement. Plaintiff was ordered to file a new application within thirty days.
Plaintiff filed a new in forma pauperis application on November 28, 2011. However, plaintiff again fails to submit a certified copy of his jail trust account statement. Therefore, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will again be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
II. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
In the court's November 14, 2011 order, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff was advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court is required to screen complaints and must dismiss a complaint that raises claims that are legally frivolous or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. No. 10 at 2.) Plaintiff was provided with the legal standards applicable to the claims he was attempting to present and was advised that he must name only defendants proper defendant. (Id. at 3-4.) The court also noted that the Colusa County Court System, Colusa County Hospital, Colusa Police Department, Colusa Sheriff Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the F.D.A. Federal Drug Administration were not properly named as defendants in a civil rights action. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was advised that he must name as defendants only those who had allegedly acted under color of state law in denying him his constitutional rights. (Id.)
In the amended complaint now before the court plaintiff has failed to name any defendant. Instead, plaintiff provides the following statement:
As I have stated in my "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus"*fn1 , that the agencies would not give name(s) - only initial on form(s) or title(s)[.] As you can see by some form(s) I have sent to you (District Court(s)) - California Department of Correction [sic] & Rehabilitation - Colusa Sheriff Dept. - Colusa County Police Dept. (Doc. No. 12 at 3.) However, plaintiff cannot proceed with this civil rights action without naming a proper defendant.
As to the nature of the claims presented in his amended complaint, plaintiff provides only the following statement:
I have been stating fact(s) and showed most of it. But when I could not get the Information, I ask for from the "Agencies" or person(s) or Individual, to show incompetdence [sic] or neglectfully in thier [sic] job(s) or office(s) as you can see (U.S. District Court) - I have tryed [sic] to get information - outside of jail I had most of the Information now I can not get to it to send to (U.S. District Court) one (U.S. District Court has all my medical malpractice paperwork and the U.S. District Court "bounce" from one U.S. District Court to another. (Id.) Although plaintiff has attached supplemental pages to his amended complaint, the nature of the claims plaintiff seeks to pursue in this civil rights action remain unclear. As the court explained in its November 14, 2011 order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend, plaintiff is required to provide a short and plain statement of his claim or claims and to set forth sufficient factual allegations to provide defendant with fair notice of the claim or claims and the grounds upon which those claims rest. (Doc. No. 10 at 2-3.) Here, it is impossible to determine from plaintiff's amended complaint the nature of his claims. Moreover, plaintiff's subsequently filed letters, exhibits, and statements add further confusion rather than clarification as to the nature of the claims he is attempting to pursue. For example, on December 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a document with the court titled, "Complaint Form" in which he writes in part:
This shows the conflict of interest, and United States and California Constitution, and my civil rights as a human and a humanitarian for the "we the people of the United States Rights."
*1) Incompetent counsel - by Public Defender (Albert Smith -Colusa, City of Colusa)
*2) Colusa Court System - In Colusa Superior Court of California -failed same as Public Defender Albert Smith - to send all copies of transcripts and record and documents regarding all my cases in Colusa County Court System, NO! Information was sent to me by Albert Smith (Public Defender) or the Courts of Colusa (Doc. No. 15 at 1-2.)*fn2 None of these references by plaintiff in his amended civil rights complaint or the documents attached thereto make clear the nature of the claims he is attempting to ...