Farley v. Virga et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion to modify his case (ECF No. 36 ) is denied; Within fourteen days of the date of this order, Supervising Deputy Attorney Monica Anderson shall file the status report discussed above; and The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order and plaintiffs March 31, 2014 motion (ECF No. 36 ) and April 11, 2014 letter (ECF No. 38 ) on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson. (cc Monica Anderson)(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM D. FARLEY, 12 No. 2: 13-cv-1751 KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 T. VIRGA, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 3, 2013, plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the 19 undersigned. (ECF No. 4.) This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed November 20 13, 2013. (ECF No. 11.) All defendants are located at California State Prison-Sacramento 21 (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff is now housed at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”). 22 On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a “motion for modification of the case.” (ECF No. 36.) 23 In this motion, plaintiff requests that Dr. Gill be added as a defendant. The court construes 24 plaintiff’s motion for modification as a motion to amend his complaint to include claims against 25 Dr. Gill. Plaintiff’s motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. 26 As a prisoner, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant to the in forma 27 pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a proposed amended 28 complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for modification of 1 1 2 the case, construed as a motion to amend, is denied. In plaintiff’s March 31, 2014 motion, plaintiff alleges that Dr. Gill took his wheelchair 3 away which made it unable for plaintiff to get his Keyhea medications, food, drink, etc. Plaintiff 4 also alleges that he does not have access to his legal property because he is on suicide watch. On 5 April 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that he was being denied access to his 6 legal property and the law library. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed on suicide watch after he 7 began cutting himself. Plaintiff alleges that the stress of this case, not being able to get medical 8 treatment, not being able to get legal representation and his deteriorating mental health became 9 too much for him to handle. Plaintiff alleges that the plan is to keep him on suicide watch for a 10 long time. 11 The court is concerned with plaintiff’s claim that his wheelchair was improperly 12 confiscated, as a result of which he could not obtain his medication, food, drink, etc. Plaintiff’s 13 allegations suggest that he began cutting himself, in part, due to the confiscation of his 14 wheelchair. The court is also concerned with plaintiff’s claim that he will be on suicide watch for 15 a long time, during which time he will be without access to his legal property or the law library. 16 No defendants are located at Corcoran. Accordingly, the court directs Supervising Deputy 17 Attorney General Monica Anderson to file a status report within fourteen days addressing the 18 court’s concerns set forth above. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. 21 2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, Supervising Deputy Attorney Monica 22 23 Plaintiff’s motion to modify his case (ECF No. 36) is denied; Anderson shall file the status report discussed above; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order and plaintiff’s March 31, 2014 24 motion (ECF No. 36) and April 11, 2014 letter (ECF No. 38) on Supervising Deputy 25 Attorney General Monica Anderson. 26 Dated: April 28, 2014 27 28 Far1751.ord 2

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?