Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05321-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOAIZA, M.D., et.al,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5321 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

APPLY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LOCAL

RULE 78-230. (Doc. 51.) 

 Josh Thomas Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On February 7, 2006, Defendant filed an Application to apply other provisions of Local

Rule 78-230(m). Defendant states that the Court should apply these provisions in lieu of 78-

230(m) because Plaintiff is no longer in custody as he is living in Modesto, and California State

Prison - Corcoran is located in Kings County. (Application at 1.) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), “[a]ll motions, except for motions to dismiss for lack

of prosecution, filed in cases wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 53 Filed 02/10/06 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

27

28

2

persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by

the Court.” Local Rule 78-230(m). While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff may no longer be

in state custody, it is this Court’s practice to apply the provision of Local Rule 78-230(m) to all

prisoner cases even when a Plaintiff has been released from custody. Should the Court find a

hearing requiring the presence of the parties necessary, it shall so order. Accordingly, the Court

finds no justification to deviate from the provisions of Rule 78-230(m) and Defendant’s

Application is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05321-OWW -LJO Document 53 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2