McCoy v. Evans et al

Filing 52

ORDER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/16/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AARON McCOY,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 09-4768 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
MIKE EVANS, warden; et al.,
Defendants.
/

12
13

Plaintiff filed a "request for case clarification/disposition" in which he asked the court to

14

inform him of the final disposition of Furnace v. Evans, 2009 WL 2511969. (Docket # 51.) The

15

request is GRANTED and the information will be provided this time; however, no further such

16

requests will be entertained because the court does not do factual or legal research for litigants

17

and does not have sufficient time to serve as fact-checker for the prison rumor mill. The docket

18

sheet for Furnace v. Evans, No. C 06-4229 MMC, shows that an appeal is pending from the

19

order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. That means that plaintiff was

20

extremely misinformed when told that a prisoner had a multi-million dollar victory in that case.

21

The court also notes that plaintiff misrepresented what the court had earlier determined

22

about his case. Plaintiff stated that the "court has even ruled that most of his claims had merit

23

and should not be dismissed." (Docket # 51, p. 2.) The order to which he referred actually said

24

something quite different: "The denial of the motion to dismiss says nothing about the merits of

25

plaintiff's claims and only concerns the sufficiency of the pleading." (Docket # 45, p. 20.)

26

Plaintiff is cautioned to read the court's orders more carefully.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2011

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge