Campbell v. Struffert et al

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS 71 REQUEST FOR MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2015)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 SENARBLE CAMPBELL, Case No. 13-cv-05084-HSG (PR) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION 5 v. 6 7 W. STRUFFERT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 71 Defendants. 8 9 10 On May 14, 2014, plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Sacramento, filed a pro se amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 12 constitutional violations by staff at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was formerly 13 incarcerated. On August 28, 2014, the Court screened the amended complaint, found it stated 14 cognizable claims, and ordered service on three defendants at PBSP. On June 19, 2015, 15 defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s opposition thereto is currently 16 due on or before July 17, 2015. 17 Now before the Court is plaintiff’s request for a court order directing his current jailors to 18 provide him with a mental health evaluation. The Court lacks jurisdiction over individuals at 19 plaintiff’s current prison. Accordingly, the request is DENIED. 20 If plaintiff wishes to complain about the conditions of confinement at California State 21 Prison, Sacramento, he should file a civil rights complaint in the proper district (which would be 22 the Eastern District of California) after exhausting administrative remedies for any such claims. 23 This order terminates Docket No. 71. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 28 Dated: 7/1/2015 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?