Jones v. Plessas et al
Filing
58
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/28/11 ORDERING that plaintiff shall forthwith seek an Olson or central file review, and if prison officials notify plaintiff his central file is still unavailable, shall immediately inform the court; Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to submit copies of appeal forms; and Defendants shall file a reply within 7 days thereafter.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MALIK JONES,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2:09-cv-2133 KJM KJN P
vs.
C. PLESSAS, et al.,
14
Defendant.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. This action is proceeding
17
on the third amended complaint (“TAC”), filed November 16, 2010. (Dkt. No. 25.) Pursuant to
18
findings and recommendations issued October 22, 2010 (dkt. no. 22), and the district court’s
19
December 10, 2010 order (dkt. no. 26), various claims were dismissed, and this action is
20
proceeding on these remaining claims in the TAC:
1. Plaintiff alleges that defendants A. Pickens, Martines, Laeres,1 Plessas, Smith,
21
22
Kissinger and Fletcher used excessive force and failed to protect plaintiff on June 25, 2008.
23
(Dkt. No. 25 at 4.) Plaintiff included state law claims of assault and battery and the intentional
24
infliction of emotional distress.
25
1
26
Defendant Laeres was incorrectly named as defendant Lorad in the TAC. (Dkt. No. 53
at 4 n.1.)
1
1
2. On October 8, 2008, plaintiff alleges defendant Jackson used excessive force,
2
in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and raises state law claims of assault and battery and the
3
intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 25 at 7.)
3. Plaintiff alleges defendants Cosby, Wright, Boretz, and Krauss2 retaliated
4
5
against plaintiff for his litigation. (Dkt. No. 25 at 5.)
6
4. Plaintiff alleges defendants A. Pickens, Martines, Laeres, Smith and Kissinger
7
were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Dkt. No. 25 at 4-5, ¶¶ 46-53.)
8
9
Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is presently pending. In plaintiff’s opposition, plaintiff claims he
10
attempted to obtain an Olson or central file review to “get copies of 602s that were screen[ed] out
11
fraudulently to show the court more proof of [plaintiff] filing proper 602 forms and prison
12
officials committing misconduct to prevent [plaintiff] from properly exhausting administrative
13
remedies.” (Dkt. No. 51 at 2.) Plaintiff’s request was denied because the Attorney General had
14
plaintiff’s central file. (Id.) Plaintiff provided a copy of his May 10, 2011 request to view the
15
central file. (Dkt. No. 51 at 17.) The request notes plaintiff sought review about a month prior,
16
and sought review A.S.A.P. (Id.)
17
In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted an extension of time in which to
18
submit copies of appeal forms plaintiff contends support his oppositions to the pending motions
19
to dismiss. Plaintiff shall seek an Olson or central file review, and if prison officials notify
20
plaintiff his central file is still unavailable, shall inform the court. If plaintiff fails to timely
21
provide these documents, the court will rule on the motions as presently submitted.
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1. Plaintiff shall forthwith seek an Olson or central file review, and if prison
24
officials notify plaintiff his central file is still unavailable, shall immediately inform the court;
25
2
26
Defendants Boretz and Krauss were incorrectly named as defendants Boras and Cross
in the TAC. (Dkt. No. 53 at 5 n.2.)
2
1
2
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to submit
copies of appeal forms; and
3
4
3. Defendants shall file a reply within seven days thereafter.
DATED: September 28, 2011
5
6
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
jone2133.ext
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?