Thomas v. Pfizer, Incorporated et al

Filing 40

ORDER re June 3, 2009, June 8, 2009 and June 9, 2009 Submissions. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/10/2009. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/11/2009: # 1 Certificate of Service) (be, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX 11 MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,
12 13 14

CASE NO. 05-1699 CRB MDL No. 1699 CRB ORDER RE JUNE 3, 2009, JUNE 8, 2009 AND JUNE 9, 2009 SUBMISSIONS

/ This document relates to:

Edward Earl Thomas, 06-3674 CRB 15 ___________________________________/
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court is in receipt of five new letters from pro se plaintiff Edward Earl Thomas. The first three, received on June 3, 2009, are all captioned "Change of Venue," and refer to "valid lawsuits on trillionairs [sic] mail fraud." These letters go on to request that the Court send Plaintiff numerous applications and forms, and request "U.S. personal protection for me and witnesses." The fourth letter, received on June 8, 2009, is captioned "Motion to Show Cause/Jurisdiction/Cross-Application and/Reconsideration/Represent myself/Response," refers to "mailing defraud," to President Reagan's having been shot, and to FBI spies intending to harm him via witchcraft and ghost voices. The fifth letter, received on June 9, 2009, is captioned a "Supplemental Brief, Appeal de novo, Emergency Motion/Respond" and also a "Complaint." It appears to address the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus and raises concerns as to mail fraud and the denial of his requests to change venue. The Court cannot discern the purpose of Plaintiff's letters, and cannot provide //

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff with the relief he apparently seeks. To the extent Plaintiff has made a motion to this Court it is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2009

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\ordersmisc\orderrethoma24.wpd s