Hearne v. Baughman et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/20/17 ORDERING that the letter (ECF No. 5 ) be stricken from the docket. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY HEARNE,

12
13

No. 2:16-cv-01357 DB

Plaintiff,
v.

14

DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983. On June 30, 2016, plaintiff filed a letter to this court titled a “Prop 47 Application From

19

My Lawyer to File.” (ECF No. 5.) In this letter, plaintiff expresses confusion about where he is

20

supposed to file a “proposition 47 packet.” (Id.) This letter relates to a previous request made by

21

plaintiff for the court to provide him with a “proposition 47 packet.” (ECF No. 4.) The previous

22

request for the packet (ECF No. 4) and the motion (ECF No. 5) now before this court both do not

23

relate to plaintiff’s civil action before the undersigned. Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint (ECF No.

24

1) concerns alleged mismanagement of his medical treatment while in custody. Issues related to

25

proposition 47 and plaintiff’s sentencing by the state court are completely unrelated to this action.

26

“It is well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their docket.’ ”

27

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)

28

(alteration in original) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th
1

1

Cir.1998)). This includes the power to strike items from the docket. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR

2

Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580,

3

586–87, 588 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing, but declining to rule on, the ability of a district court to

4

strike documents submitted as exhibits to a motion); Carrigan v. Cal. State Legislature, 263 F.2d

5

560, 564 (9th Cir.1959) (discussing an appellate court's inherent power to strike briefs and

6

pleadings “as either scandalous, impertinent, scurrilous, and/or without relevancy”).

7

Because plaintiff’s letter concerning proposition 47 is Dated: January 20, 2017

8

without relevancy to the current case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the letter (ECF No. 5) be

9

stricken from the docket.

10

Dated: January 20, 2017

11
12
13
14
15

TIM-DLB:10
DB / ORDERS / ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS / hear.1357.striking

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2