Elmore v. Flippo et al

Filing 33

ORDER Disregarding 28 Motion for Extension as Moot; ORDER Denying 30 Motion for Inmate Representation signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/08/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONIE ELMORE,

12

1:10-cv-01738-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT
(Doc. 28.)

D. GOREE, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INMATE
REPRESENTATION
(Doc. 30.)

15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

Tonie Elmore ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

20

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this

21

action on September 2, 2010 at the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

22

(Doc. 3.) On September 22, 2010, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of California.

23

(Doc. 6.) On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action, and

24

no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 9.)

25

The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on

26

December 13, 2010, dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 10.) On March 3, 2011,

27

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 13.) On November 8, 2011, the Court issued

28

an order requiring Plaintiff to either (1) file a Second Amended Complaint, or (2) notify the Court
1

1

of his willingness to proceed with the First Amended Complaint on the claims found cognizable by

2

the Court. (Doc. 19.)

3

On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time and a motion for inmate

4

representation. (Docs. 28, 30.) Plaintiff’s motions are now before the Court.

5

II.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

6

Plaintiff requests a thirty-day extension of time to file a Second Amended Complaint, in

7

compliance with the Court’s order of November 8, 2011. (Doc. 28.) Inasmuch as Plaintiff was

8

granted a ninety-day extension of time for this purpose on December 15, 2011, and the deadline shall

9

remain pending for more than thirty days, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is unnecessary and

10

will be disregarded as moot.

11

III.

MOTION FOR INMATE REPRESENTATION

12

Plaintiff also requests that the Court allow inmate Elliot Nash to represent Plaintiff in this

13

action. If no adequate alternative is available, Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking assistance from

14

a fellow inmate to litigate his lawsuit. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353-54 (9th Cir. 1981).

15

However, a fellow inmate who is a non-lawyer may not represent Plaintiff. A non-lawyer may not

16

represent anyone but himself in court. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir.

17

1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore,

18

Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to allow inmate Elliot Nash to represent him must be denied.

19

IV.

CONCLUSION

20

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is DISREGARDED as moot; and

22

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for representation by inmate Elliot Nash is DENIED.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

February 8, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2