Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00307-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY A. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILLIGAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 307 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPEARANCE AND MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION 

(Docs. 20, 21.) 

 Henry A. Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. 

Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 24, 2005. On June 29, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

pleading he titled “Motion: Citizen Complaint Demand For Jury Trial.” In this document,

Case 1:05-cv-00307-SMS Document 22 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff indicated that he filed a complaint against CDC personnel for conspiracy to cover up

mail destruction and conspiracy to commit murder and makes a demand for a jury trial. The

Court issued an Order disregarding the Motion on January 20, 2006, and explained to the

Plaintiff that he must exhaust all his administrative remedies with respect to claims he wishes to

bring before the Court. 

On February 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting that he be brought before the

Court. Plaintiff also makes a demand for a jury trial. 

On March 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification and Correction of the

Court’s Order disregarding the Motion concerning the “Citizen Complaint and Demand for Jury

Trial.” 

Plaintiff complains that he has not been brought before the Court on his Complaint and

then proceeds to explain to the Court why he has not been able to exhaust his administrative

remedies. However, the Court’s Order was not an invitation to discuss the exhaustion issue. The

Order merely informed Plaintiff of the exhaustion requirement as Plaintiff appeared to be

complaining about issues that arose after he initiated the instant action. 

Further, Plaintiff is informed that his is not the only civil rights case pending before the

Court. The Court has literally hundreds of similar cases pending before it at any given time. 

Generally, the Court proceeds with each case in the order in which they are filed. Plaintiff is also

informed that the Court must first screen the Complaint to determine whether it states a

cognizable claim for relief. Then, it will issue an order setting forth various deadlines in the

case. Plaintiff may refer to the informational order served on him at the initiation of this case for

further information as to how the case proceeds. In any event, the Court will not order Plaintiff

to come to court in person until the matter is set for trial. Until such time as that happens, all

requests to be brought before the Court and demands for jury trial will be denied. Plaintiff

should keep the Court informed of his current address at all times to ensure that he receives

notice of what is happening in his case. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for clarification, the Court does not routinely issue

orders explaining its prior orders. The explanation lies within the Order itself. Thus, Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00307-SMS Document 22 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

should refrain from filing Motions seeking clarification and jury demands. As stated above,

Plaintiff may refer to the informational orders provided him at the outset of the case and should

follow any instructions in the Court’s orders carefully to aid in the expeditious resolution of his

case. Plaintiff will be informed of deadlines for filing of certain types of motions and he can then

decide if the filing of such motion is warranted. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion requesting appearance and Motion for clarification are

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00307-SMS Document 22 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3