Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00764/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00764-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER PERRYMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-0764 SBA (pr)

ORDER VACATING

JUNE 17, 2003

PREFILING ORDER

On June 17, 2003, the Court issued the following prefiling order in the above-captioned case:

Inany actionfiled inthis Court byDarryl Lee Goldstein, after the initialpleadings have

beenfiled, everypapersubmitted byMr.Goldsteinforfilingshall first be reviewed by the judge

presiding over the case and shall be filed only withleave ofthe Court. Papers rejected for filing

shall be returned to Mr. Goldstein withthe attached sheet generally setting forth the reason(s)

for the rejection. Except when he seeks emergency relief, Mr. Goldstein shall not serve a

document on the opposing party or parties untilhe receives a file-stamped face sheet showing

that the document has beenaccepted forfiling. Once he receives the file-stamped face sheet,

he must promptly serve the opposing partyor parties with the document and he must then file

a proof of service with the Court. The proof of service must be filed no later than ten days

(excludingweekends and holidays) from the date the original document was filed. Any paper

that has not beenserved onDefendants (as documented in a timely filed proof of service) will

be stricken from the record.

Plaintiff attempted very few court filings for the two years following the issuance of the prefiling

order. In light of the change in Plaintiff's behavior and the substantial passage of time since the prefiling

order was issued, the Court finds it appropriate to VACATE the order at this time. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that he should only file the documents necessary to litigate his actions. The

Court also warns Plaintiff that he could be sanctioned for unreasonablymultiplyingcourt proceedings or for

failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 (requiring service of all

papers on the opposing parties, including letters or informal notes). Sanctions may include the striking of

papers from the record and denial of unserved motions, among other consequences. If Plaintiff fails to

comply withthe Court's orders bysubmitting duplicative filings and failingtoconductserviceon Defendants,

the Court will issue an order to show cause why a prefiling order should not be issued, which will be

Case 4:02-cv-00764-SBA Document 94 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

applicable to any action Plaintiff files in this Court.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/1/05

s/Saundra Brown Armstrong__

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00764-SBA Document 94 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2