Starr v. Alameda County Jail

Filing 162

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 155 157 Ex Parte Applications Regarding Health Care. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHANNON LEE STARR,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATIONS REGARDING
HEALTH CARE

v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al.,

Docket Nos. 155, 157

Defendants.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 12-cv-04400-EMC

13

Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining about dental care at the

14

Alameda County Jail. He currently is represented by counsel and, according to minutes in the

15

Court’s docket, the action was settled last week. The Court has received two recent ex parte

16

applications filed by Plaintiff pro se, rather than filed by his appointed attorneys. In his two ex

17

parte applications, Plaintiff seeks relief for his hernia and related pain. He appears to want an

18

order for physicians to provide care for the hernia and/or for physicians to comply with a state

19

court order regarding the hernia treatment.

20

The requested relief is outside the scope of this action and unrelated to the dental care at

21

issue in this action. See Docket No. 112. Additionally, when a plaintiff is represented by counsel,

22

he should not be filing pro se documents with the Court. See United States v. Mujahid, 799 F.3d

23

1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court acted within its discretion in declining to grant request

24

made pro se by a litigant who was then represented by counsel); McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d

25

1057, 1059 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (declining to consider pro se letters from habeas petitioner because

26

he was represented by counsel); Rosenblum v. Campbell, 370 F. App’x 782 (9th Cir. 2010)

27

(denying petitioner’s motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief; “[b]ecause [petitioner] is

28

represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings.”) For these reasons, the ex parte

1

applications for an order for physician to provide care or comply with a state court order are

2

DENIED. (Docket Nos. 155 and 157.)

3

If Mr. Starr is concerned that jail staff are not complying with a state court order, he should

4

address his comments and concerns to the state court that issued the order, as that court is in the

5

best position to make sure its order is followed.

6

If Mr. Starr wants to complain about the conditions of confinement at the county jail, he

7

may file a new civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He should use the Court’s civil

8

rights complaint form and pay the filing fee or submit a completed in forma pauperis application

9

at the time he files his complaint. The Clerk will mail him two copies of those forms for his

10

convenience.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: December 16, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2