Harrison v. Milligan et al

Filing 57

ORDER 50 51 52 55 56 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARCUS L. HARRISON,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 09-4665 SI (pr)
ORDER

v.
D.E. MILLIGAN, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

/

14

Docket ## 50, 51, 52, 55, and 56

15

Marcus L. Harrison, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed a pro se civil

16

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a First Amendment claim regarding the

17

confiscation of certain outgoing and incoming mail. On September 21, 2011, the court granted

18

in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Docket #20. Harrison

19

has filed a request to redact information in the court’s September 21, 2011 summary judgment

20

order (Docket #50), a request that the undersigned contact Magistrate Judge Vadas (Docket #51),

21

a motion to strike evidence from the record (Docket #52), a motion to correct the amount of

22

money that Harrison has paid in filing fee installments (Docket #55), and a motion to amend

23

information to Harrison’ motion for reconsideration (Docket #56). Plaintiff’s numerous, often

24

petty and repetitive, motions are needlessly consuming limited judicial resources. He cannot

25

rewrite history, nor can he stifle defendants’ contentions with his after-the-fact attacks on

26

documents in the record.

27

//

28

//

1

I.

Request to Redact Information

2

Harrison requests that the Court redact the address of Hannah Bastienne from the Court’s

3

summary judgment issued seven months ago because he is concerned for Bastienne’s safety.

4

His safety concerns are wholly speculative. More importantly, it was Harrison that first put in

5

the record Bastienne’s address, without any safety concerns mentioned. See Docket #1, Exh.

6

A at 51 and Docket #15, Exh. D. The Court’s summary judgment order is part of the public

7

record and will not be redacted. Harrison’s request is DENIED. (Docket #50.)

8
9

II.

Request that the undersigned contact Magistrate Judge Vadas

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Harrison requests that the undersigned contact Magistrate Judge Vadas because

11

“1) Defendants have not introduced Plaintiff’s confiscated mail into the record; and 2) so that

12

Judge Susan Illston can confirm what Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas told Plaintiff on

13

5/25/12, to which is quoted in part in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.” Harrison’s request is

14

DENIED. (Docket #51.) The Court prefers not to be informed of the content of settlement

15

negotiations.

16
17

III.

Motion to Strike Evidence from the Record

18

Harrison requests that the Court strike certain evidence from the record, specifically

19

specific portions of defendants’ pleadings that make certain factual allegations with which he

20

disagrees. Harrison’s request is DENIED. (Docket #52.) The Court will not strike pleadings

21

from the record simply because Harrison disagrees with their content.

22
23

IV.

Request to Correct the Amount of Money that Plaintiff has Paid in Filing Fee Installments

24

Harrison again states that he has overpaid his filing fee in this case by $45.62. He

25

requests that the Court acknowledge this and apply the $45.62 to his filing fee obligation in

26

Harrison v. E. Smith, C No. 08-4123 SI. Harrison’s request (Docket #55) is DENIED.

27

Harrison’s filing fee issues have been the subject of two motions in this case. Docket ##

28
2

1

21 and 46. The Court has informed Harrison multiple times that the Court’s records show no

2

overpayment in this case and will not repeat the discussion here.

3
4

V.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

5

Harrison has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 21, 2012 order

6

denying his request for reconsideration, and various related motions. (Docket #56.) Harrison’s

7

request for re-reconsideration for the denial of summary judgment is DENIED. Harrison’s

8

related motions to amend the information and for judicial notice are therefore DENIED as moot.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: June 15, 2012

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3