Dews v. Kern Radiology Medical Group, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER STRIKING 22 Memorandum Filed by Plaintiff on Febrary 25, 2013 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/27/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CLARENCE LEON DEWS,

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00242-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
11

ORDER STRIKING MEMORANDUM FILED
BY PLAINTIFF ON FEBRUARY 25, 2013

Plaintiff,

12

v.

(ECF No. 22)

13
14

KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17
18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

20
Plaintiff Clarence Leon Dews is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
21
22
23
24

pauperis in this civil rights action filed on February 21, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF No. 1.)
The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) on March

25

19, 2013, dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to file an amended

26

pleading by not later than April 22, 2013. (ECF No. 23.)

27
-1-

1
2
3

On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Anonymous
Confidential Memorandum” (“Memorandum”). (ECF No. 22.) The caption of the
Memorandum references this case and more than ten others apparently pending in

4
5
6

other courts. The document was filed in those actions and in this one.
II.

DISCUSSION

7

A.

8

The Memorandum was improperly filed. The Informational Order sent to Plaintiff

9
10

Memorandum Improperly Filed

on February 23, 2012 (ECF No. 3) provides that:
“All filings must bear the case number assigned to the action, followed by the

11
12

initials of the District Court Judge and the Magistrate Judge to whom the case is

13

assigned and the letters "PC." Where plaintiff simultaneously pursues more than

14

one action, he or she must file separate original documents and the appropriate

15

number of copies in each action to which the document pertains. Documents

16

submitted listing more than one case number in the caption will be stricken.”

17

First Informational Order at ¶ 5.

18
19

Failure to comply with this Court's orders, local rules, and the Federal Rules of

20

Civil Procedure “may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all

21

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 11-110. Courts have

22

the inherent power to control their docket and in the exercise of that power, they may

23

properly strike documents. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-

24

05 (9th Cir. 2010).

25
26

Plaintiff has filed the Memorandum in violation of the Court’s Order. It will be

27
-2-

1

stricken.

2

B.

3

The Memorandum has no apparent relation to the instant action and may also be

4

Memorandum Immaterial to Instant Action

stricken on that basis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

5

The Memorandum alleges unnamed prison officials at unspecified facilities have

6
7

retaliated against Plaintiff by placing him in improper housing (where he is drugged,

8

beaten, raped and watched over by jailhouse informants) and by placing him in

9

administrative segregation where he is deprived of his property.

10
11

The Memorandum’s claims are unrelated to the instant action, which arises from
alleged medical indifference and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

12

C.

No Basis for Injunctive Relief

13
To the extent the Memorandum were properly filed and reflected a request for

14
15

injunctive relief in this case, it would not properly be before this Court at this time.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint has been dismissed for failure to state a

16
17

claim. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff has yet to plead a cognizable federal claim. Plaintiff has

18

no case or controversy pending before the Court in this action. If the Court does not

19

have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to reach the matter in

20
question. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and
21
22

State Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a need for and entitlement to injunctive relief in

23
24

this action.

25

///////

26

///////

27
-3-

1

III.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

2
3

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Memorandum filed February 25, 2013 (ECF No. 22), be STRICKEN.

4
5
6
.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15

Dated:

16

12eob4

March 27, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-4-