Dean v. Gonzales

Filing 112

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/17/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 110 motion. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALTON E. DEAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:10-cv-01355 MCE KJN (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KATHRYN M. GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action filed pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff‟s fifth amended complaint which alleges

19

that defendants at the Sacramento County Jail violated his Eighth Amendment rights by their

20

alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. ECF No. 34.

21

On January 8, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion styled as “plaintiff‟s pursuit of class counsel

22

membership.” ECF No. 110. In his filing, plaintiff seeks “support in his claim for the enjoining

23

of „class counsel.‟” Id. Plaintiff also indicates that he “has been assaulted four times by full-

24

bodied inmates while plaintiff is a permanent wheelchair-bound hemiplegic whom has filed a

25

superior court (claim) in Kings County.” Id. Plaintiff provided with his motion an order issued in

26

Plata, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al., Case No. C01-1351 THE (N.D. Cal.), which indicates that

27

any filings received in that action from pro se inmates shall not be filed and will instead be

28

forwarded to the Plata Receiver‟s Controlled Correspondence Unit for appropriate investigation.
1

1
2

Id. at 4.
With regard to plaintiff‟s request for the “enjoining of „class counsel,‟” as this court has

3

previously advised plaintiff, “to the extent plaintiff is seeking relief through Plata . . ., plaintiff

4

must pursue such claims through class counsel.” ECF No. 99. The court cannot serve as an

5

advocate for plaintiff; and it is incumbent upon plaintiff to contact the Plata class counsel himself.

6

Therefore, plaintiff‟s motion will be denied.

7

With regard to plaintiff‟s allegation of assault by four inmates, the court notes that

8

plaintiff is presently incarcerated in a state prison in Corcoran, California. Further, plaintiff‟s

9

allegation is unrelated to his underlying Eighth Amendment claims based on incidents at the

10

Sacramento County Jail. As explained in this court‟s previous order addressing plaintiff‟s alleged

11

transfer to a high security prison, “[i]f plaintiff intends to challenge the actions of prison officials

12

at the state prison in Corcoran, he must file a civil rights complaint naming such officials. Claims

13

arising in Corcoran, Kings County, California, must be filed in the Fresno Division of the United

14

States District Court. L.R. 120(d).” ECF No. 101 at n.2. This court is unable to address

15

plaintiff‟s unrelated allegations of assault that did not occur within this district.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff‟s January 8, 2014 motion (ECF

17

No. 110) is denied.

18

Dated: January 17, 2014

19
20

dean1355.ord(3)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2