Hubbard v. California State Prison-Corcoran et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 14 Motion Construed In Part as Request for Relief from Standing Order In Re: Procedural Rules for Electronic Submission of Prisoner Litigation Filed by Plaintiff's Incarerated at Corcoran and Pleasant Valley State Prison, with Prejudice, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/09/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ZANE M. HUBBARD,

11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISON-CORCORAN, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01439-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION CONSTRUED
IN PART AS REQUEST FOR RELIEF
FROM STANDING ORDER IN RE:
PROCEDURAL RULES FOR ELECTRONIC
SUBMISSION OF PRISONER LITIGATION
FILED BY PLAINTIFFS INCARCERATED
AT CORCORAN AND PLEASANT
VALLEY STATE PRISONS, WITH
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 14)

16
_____________________________________/
17

Plaintiff Zane M. Hubbard, # F48741, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

18

19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 21, 2014, in the United States District Court for
1
20 the District of Columbia. Following transfer to this court, the action was dismissed on October 1,

21 2014, and Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, with prejudice, on November 17,
22 2014. On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a sixty-four page motion entitled “Emergency Request
23 for Relief, and Assistance in Filing Two Civil Rights Claims.” (Doc. 14.)
The Court previously considered Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on the merits and

24

25 the current motion presents no basis for any further relief in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6);
26 Local Rule 230(j). Instead, for reasons which are not clear, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking to
27
28

1

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inmate Locator website lists two Zane M. Hubbards in
the custody: Zane Molina Hubbard, #F48741, and Zane Martrell Hubbard, #F8782.

1 avoid compliance with the new rules for e-filing by sending documents for filing in this closed
2 case, which is not subject to the e-filing rules.
3

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran and he is subject to the

4 Standing Order In Re: Procedural Rules for Electronic Submission of Prison Litigation Filed by
5 Plaintiffs Incarcerated at Corcoran and Pleasant Valley State Prisons, filed on October 1, 2014.
6 Pursuant to the Standing Order, which applies to initial filings, (1) new complaints are subject to
7 e-filing and they may not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and (2) motions for emergency relief
8 are subject to e-filing and they may not exceed fifteen pages in length, as Plaintiff was correctly
9 informed by prison staff. (E.g., Doc. 14, Motion, court record p. 5.) To the extent the motion is
10 construed as seeking relief from the Standing Order, it is denied. Furthermore, to the extent
11 Plaintiff is requesting the Court detach the complaint he included and open a new case, his request
12 is denied. Plaintiff is required to comply with the e-filing procedures set forth in the Standing
13 Order and there exists no legitimate basis for exempting him from compliance.
14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED, with prejudice. Any

15 further filings the Court determines to be frivolous will be summary denied or stricken, whichever
16 is deemed appropriate by the Court. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827
17 (1989) (frivolous filings lack arguable basis either in law or in fact).
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: February 9, 2015

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2