Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02134/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02134-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY E. MACK, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2134 MCE CMK P

vs.

MARSHA ONA, et al.,

Defendants ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, and has requested authority to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 by the authority of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Currently before the court is plaintiff’s “Notice on Status of Case,” which was filed on

February 7, 2006.

On January 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting plaintiff until February 3,

2006 to file a completed affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a

copy of his prison trust account statement. The court also advised plaintiff that if he failed to file

an amended complaint by February 3, 2006, it would assume that plaintiff chose to proceed on the

complaint filed October 24, 2005. 

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 13 Filed 02/16/06 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

2

In plaintiff’s February 7, 2006 filing, he states that the prison officials have yet to

provide him with a copy of his prison trust account statement. He states that he has notified

prison officials of his February 3, 2006 deadline for filing his trust account statement. Plaintiff

believes that the Litigation Coordinator is holding his trust account statement. Plaintiff further

states that his legal property is being held by prison officials, which is preventing him from filing

an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks to “stay” these proceedings or have the court “order via

injunction for prison officials to physically return...all property confiscated on November 27,

2005.” 

A review of the docket reveals that plaintiff filed a completed affidavit along with

a certified copy of his trust account statement on February 8, 2006. Accordingly, his concerns

regarding his trust account statement are now moot. 

Plaintiff’s request for a stay of the proceedings or an order for prison officials to

return his confiscated materials is unnecessary at this time. Plaintiff has not made a showing that

prison officials are interfering with his right of access to the court. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 346 (1996). Further, in order to effectively manage its docket, the court cannot dely the

proceedings in plaintiff’s case. As plaintiff’s trust account statement has now been filed, the

court must move forward with screening the complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff is reminded

that, despite the court moving forward with his action, he is not foreclosed from filing an

amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow plaintiff to amend his pleading

once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P

15(a). 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 13 Filed 02/16/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s concerns about his certified trust account statement expressed in his

“Notice of Status of Case” (doc. 11) are moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for a stay of the proceedings or an order for prison officials

to return his confiscated materials in his “Notice of Status of Case” (doc. 11) is denied.

DATED: February 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 13 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 3