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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?