Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00202-5/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

R. CHAPNICK, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-202-OWW-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING “MOTION REQUESTING

ORDER THAT PROVISIONS OF LOCAL

RULE 78-230(m) NO LONGER APPLY”

(ECF No. 29)

Plaintiff James Jordan (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Before the Court is Defendants’ “Motion Requesting Order that Provisions of Local

Rule 78-320(m) No Longer Apply” [ECF No. 29]. Defendants submit that Plaintiff’s change

of address (ECF No. 24) indicates he is no longer a state prisoner and so the non-prisoner

provisions of Local Rule 78-230 should now apply to Plaintiff’s action.

Local Rule 78-230 governs the Court’s civil motion calendar and procedure. The

Local Rules have been amended since Defendants filed the instant motion, and the

relevant provision is now Local Rule 78-230(l). Rule 78-230(l) provides that when “one

party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona,” motions are “submitted upon the

record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” 

At the time Plaintiff initiated the instant action, he was incarcerated at a correctional

institution and proceeding in propria persona. Therefore, the Court designated the case

Case 1:07-cv-00202-MJS Document 44 Filed 07/14/10 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

27

28

-2-

as a prisoner case. On June 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Plaintiff’s Mailing Address

indicating that he was no longer incarcerated but instead residing in San Jose, CA. (ECF

No. 24.) 

Defendants correctly observe that Plaintiff’s change in custody status puts this case

outside Rule 78-230(l)’s definition of a prisoner case. For practical reasons, however, a

case originally designated a prisoner case by the Court usually retains that designation

until the case is closed.

The Court is obligated by law to follow distinctly different rules and procedures when

managing prisoner litigation, and continuity is necessary for the Court to manage its

docket. This Court has hundreds of pending prisoner cases and it would create an

enormous burden (with little benefit) to change the designation of a case and

corresponding procedures upon a change in a litigant’s custody. For these reasons, this

case shall remain a prisoner case, and Defendants’ motion shall be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion Requesting Order

that Provisions of Local Rule 78-230(m) No Longer Apply [ECF No. 29] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00202-MJS Document 44 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2