Howell v. Babb, et al.

Filing 22

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Information Notice and Request to Intervene 21 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/10/2019: Motion is denied. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KAREEM J. HOWELL,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

S. BABB, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 1:18-cv-00467-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
INFORMATION NOTICE AND REQUEST
TO INTERVENE
(Doc. No. 21)

Plaintiff Kareem J. Howell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

16
17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is set for an Alternative Dispute

18

Resolution (“ADR”) conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on February 28,

19

2019.

20

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Information Notice and Request for the Court to

21

Intervene, filed on January 7, 2019. (ECF No. 21.) The notice was captioned for six cases,

22

including this matter. Plaintiff states in the notice that he is having issues with law library access

23

and with mail, and requests assistance with matters related to one of his other cases, Howell v. J.

24

Burns, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00311-EPG-PC. Plaintiff states that the instant notice would be

25

attempted to be sent through a “peer.” Plaintiff discusses some discovery issues in the Howell v.

26

J. Burns, et al. matter, and requests a ruling on a pending motion in that case.

27
28

In this matter, discovery has been stayed pending the ADR noted above. (Doc. No. 18.)
Other than settlement statements due in this matter to arrive no later than February 21, 2019,
1

1

there are no other pending deadlines. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff is not requesting any relief for the

2

instant case, although the Court has received this mail and is receiving other mail sent around the

3

same date, which does not mention any mailing problems. Therefore, his motion is denied with

4

respect to this case.

5

Plaintiff is discouraged from filing a single document in multiple cases in the future. As

6

set forth in the First Informational Order in this case issued on April 5, 2018, if a party has more

7

than one case pending and wants to file a document in more than one case, a separate copy with

8

the case number and caption for each case should be filed. (Doc. No. 3, at ¶ II.F.) Plaintiff is

9

warned that a document with more than one case number may be stricken or returned. (Id.)

10

More importantly, Plaintiff should direct any motion to the specific issues in the case in

11

which it is filed, so that the Court can fully understand Plaintiff’s request and make appropriate

12

rulings. In this instance, Plaintiff’s notice and motion appears to have little if any relevance to

13

this matter, and such filings may waste judicial resources and create confusion. However,

14

because Plaintiff asserts that there was some extraordinary circumstances and mailing issues, the

15

Court does not find it appropriate to strike Plaintiff’s notice.

16
17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff seeks any relief in
his notice and motion to intervene filed on January 7, 2019, it is denied.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 10, 2019

21

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2