Barnett v. Norman, et al.

Filing 223

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Courtroom Deputy to provide procedures utilized in impanelment of jury, request for juror qualification forms and request for Court's assistance in obtaining standard jury instructions as to 218 , 219 and 220 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/26/2012. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TROAS V. BARNETT, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:05-cv–01022-BAM PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COURTROOM DEPUTY TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN IMPANELMENT OF J URY, REQUEST FOR J UROR QUALIFICATION FORMS, AND REQUEST FOR COURT’S ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS v. MARTIN GAMBOA, ANGEL DURAN, and MANUEL TORRES, 13 Defendants. 14 (ECF Nos. 218, 219, 220) / 15 16 Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants 18 Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran and Manuel Torres for the use of excessive force, and Defendant 19 Torres for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment and is currently set for trial on 20 January 22, 2012. On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for courtroom deputy to provide 21 the procedures utilized by the court in the impanelment of the jury and a request for the court to 22 provide Plaintiff with juror qualification forms. (ECF Nos. 219, 220.) On December 19, 2012, 23 Plaintiff filed a request for the court to provide assistance in obtaining standard jury instructions. 24 (ECF No. 218.) 25 “District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants. Pliler 26 v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). A litigant “does not have a constitutional right to receive 27 personal instruction from the trial judge on courtroom procedure,” nor does the Constitution “require 28 judges to take over chores for a pro se [litigant] that would normally be attended to by trained 1 1 counsel as a matter of course.” Pliler, 542 U.S. at 231 (internal citations omitted). On the day of 2 trial, the Court will explain the procedures to be used to impanel the jury and Plaintiff’s motion to 3 be provided with the procedures prior to trial is denied. 4 To the extent that the jury commissioner receives juror qualification forms, such forms are 5 not provided to litigants. Plaintiff will have a limited opportunity to question the jury during voir 6 dire to determine their qualification to serve as jurors in this action. Plaintiff’s motion to be provided 7 with juror qualification forms is denied. 8 Finally, the Court shall prepare a statement of the case, verdict form, and standard jury 9 instructions which will be provided to Plaintiff on the morning of trial for his review. There is no 10 need for Plaintiff to provide the Court with proposed jury instructions or a proposed verdict form. 11 Plaintiff’s motion for assistance in obtaining standard jury instructions is denied. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. 14 15 impanelment of the jury, filed December 17, 2012, is DENIED; 2. 16 17 20 Plaintiff’s request for the clerk to provide juror qualification forms, filed December 17, 2012, is DENIED; and 3. 18 19 Plaintiff’s request for the courtroom deputy to provide procedures used for Plaintiff’s request for court assistance in obtaining standard jury instructions, filed December 19, 2012, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k December 26, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?