Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01531/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01531-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCHEA L. JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1531 LKK PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on August 1, 2005. Since that

time, plaintiff has filed approximately thirty-five motions or other requests for court action. The

court is unable to address, in an orderly fashion, the motions he has previously submitted before

he files several more.

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “third request for production of

documents.” Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests

and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should

be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the

court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties

shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

On July 14, 2006, and July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed his fifth and sixth motions for

the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s previous motions were filed on June 2, 2006, May 1,

2006, August 11, 2005, and August 1, 2005. All requests were denied. In light of those orders,

plaintiff’s July 14, 2006, and July 28, 2006, motions for the appointment of counsel will be

denied. 

Plaintiff is hereby formally cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis

may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that he has filed excessive

motions in a pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also

Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is cautioned that this court views

the number of motions filed to date as excessive and that consideration will be given to restricted

court access if plaintiff does not exercise appropriate restraint henceforth. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 13, 2006, third request for production of documents will be

placed in the court file and disregarded. 

2. Plaintiff’s July 14, 2006, and July 28, 2006, motions for the appointment of

counsel are denied.

3. Plaintiff is cautioned that continued excessive motion practice will result in

restrictions on his permission to file pleadings in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is further cautioned that

failure to comply with any portion of this or any other order of this court will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: August 3, 2006.

14/mp

jack1531.411(3)

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 83 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 2