Felton v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 73

ORDER Denying 72 Request for Application of Non-Prisoner Provisions in Local Rules, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/10/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KELVIN FELTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:12-cv-01066-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
APPLICATION OF NON-PRISONER
PROVISIONS IN LOCAL RULES
(Doc. 72.)

vs.
J. LOPEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Kelvin Felton (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

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

20

Complaint commencing this action on June 29, 2012, against defendants J. Lopez and S.

21

Harrison (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.)

22

(Docs. 38, 39.) On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits

23

the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 68.)

24

On May 2, 2014, Defendants appeared in this action.

On April 9, 2015, Defendants filed a request for application of non-prisoner provisions

25

in the Local Rules in this action. (Doc. 72.)

26

II.

LOCAL RULE 230(l)

27

Local Rule 230 governs the Court=s civil motion calendar and procedure. Rule 230(l)

28

provides exceptions to the rule for motions in prisoner cases, defined as Acases wherein one
1

1

party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona.@ L.R. 230(l).1 The main exception to

2

the rule is that motions in prisoner cases are Asubmitted upon the record without oral argument

3

unless otherwise ordered by the Court.@ Id.

4

Defendants seek relief from Local Rule 230(l). Defendants note that on April 6, 2015,

5

Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he has been released from prison and

6

now resides in San Diego, California. (Doc. 71.)

7

At the time Plaintiff=s action was filed, Plaintiff was incarcerated at a correctional

8

institution and was proceeding in propria persona. Therefore, the Court designated the case as

9

a prisoner case. (See Court Docket.) As noted by Defendants, on April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed

10

a notice of change of address, indicating that he was recently released, and notifying the court

11

of his residence at a street address in San Diego, California. (Doc. 71.)

12

Defendants correctly observe that, due to Plaintiff=s change in custody, this case does

13

not currently fit within the definition of a prisoner case as stated in Rule 230(l). However, for

14

practical reasons, when a case is designated a prisoner case at the Court, the designation usually

15

remains the same until the case is closed. The Court is obligated by law to follow distinctly

16

different rules and procedures when managing prisoner case litigation, and continuity is

17

necessary for the Court to manage its docket. Although the Court is certainly not suggesting,

18

nor in any way indicating, what may occur in the present case, it does take note that in some

19
20

1

Local Rule 230(l) provides:

21
22

23
24
25
26
27

"All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in actions wherein one
party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record
without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be noticed
on the motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and
filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21),days after the date of service of the
motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and
file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the
responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a
waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of
sanctions. The moving party may, not more than seven (7) days after the opposition is served,
serve and file a reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted when the
time to reply has expired." L.R. 230(l).

28
2

1

other instances a prisoner who has been released from custody is was later returned to custody,

2

and then released again at a later time. This Court has hundreds of pending prisoner cases, and

3

it would create an enormous burden, with little benefit, to change the designation of a case,

4

with the resultant procedural changes, with each change in a litigant=s custody status. For these

5

reasons, this case shall remain a prisoner case at this time, and Defendants’ motion shall be

6

denied.

7

III.

8
9

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for the application of

non-prisoner provisions in Local Rules in this action, filed on April 9, 2015, is DENIED.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 10, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3