Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00501-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Donald Williams, et al.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-0501 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

T. Felker, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoMarch 14, 2005, plaintiffs Williams and Burns, both inmates

at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in Susanville, filed a

complaint against 13 HDSP officials. The pleading challenged

policies implemented and negative actions taken against

plaintiffs after a race riot at the prison in 2003. 

May 13, 2005, Williams alone moved to amend the complaint to

name an additional defendant. The court denied the motion on the

ground Burns had not signed it. Williams sought court

intervention to enable him to communicate with his co-plaintiff, 

Case 2:05-cv-00501-MCE -EFB Document 25 Filed 12/28/05 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

2

which the court denied June 17, 2005. The court informed

Williams that, as a pro se litigant, he could not “represent”

Burns or proceed on his behalf, and that the court would proceed

with screening the initial pleading (signed by both plaintiffs)

if they did not amend it within a set time. The court denied a

request to appoint counsel. Shortly thereafter Williams was

transferred to California State Prison - Corcoran. 

September 14, 2005, Williams filed a “motion for third

amended complaint.” Williams states it is impossible for him to

communicate with Burns, nor can he obtain Burns’ signature on an

amended pleading. Williams seeks to supplement the pleading to

allege claims that five HDSP officials not named in the initial

pleading launched a campaign of retaliation for this lawsuit,

resulting in his transfer to Corcoran and other problems. 

Williams also introduces claims regarding conditions of

confinement at Corcoran. 

Burns has filed nothing in many months and his desire to

continue in this litigation is in doubt. In Burns’ absence,

Williams seeks to alter, dramatically, the scope and direction of

the litigation. 

Good cause appearing, the court hereby orders that:

1. All Williams’ pending requests are denied because they

are made without Williams’ co-plaintiff, Burns. Any future

filings without Burns’ signature will be stricken. Williams may

file a new action, of whatever scope he desires, at any time.

2. Within 20 days, plaintiff Burns shall show cause why the

Case 2:05-cv-00501-MCE -EFB Document 25 Filed 12/28/05 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

3

court should not deem his application to proceed in forma

pauperis withdrawn and dismiss his claims without prejudice. If

Burns does not respond the court will dismiss his claims under

Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a). If Burns wishes to proceed as a plaintiff

the court will grant a limited time for plaintiffs to hire

counsel or otherwise arrange to litigate this action jointly, if

it can be done without intrusion upon the CDC’s custody decisions

and policies governing communications between prisoners. 

3. The court will screen the pleading after determining

Burns’ intentions.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00501-MCE -EFB Document 25 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 3