Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VOGEL, KEENER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6529 REC LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CONTINUANCE TO SERVE LITIGATION

COORDINATOR (Doc. 50.) 

 Jeff Harnden (“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 July 28, 2005, this Court issued an Order finding claims cognizable against

Defendants Vogel, Kenner and Key. Plaintiff returned the USM 285 forms to the Court on

September 9, 2005. On September 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document, which vaguely looks like

a pleading. The document is largely incoherent, however, the Clerk of Court was able to glean

from the document that Plaintiff was seeking a continuance so that he could serve the Litigation

Coordinator Jones. In addition to this request, Plaintiff makes vague references to prison

limitations on law library access as well as an alleged interference with mail. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance is DENIED. Ms. Jones is not a party to the case per

the Court’s Order dated July 28, 2005. Thus, Plaintiff may not serve her and the Court will not

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 51 Filed 09/29/05 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

serve Ms. Jones on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s allegations concerning law library access and interference with

mail are not claims currently present in the instant complaint and cannot, therefore, be addressed

in this action. Even were Plaintiff to move to amend the Complaint, his request would be denied

as the claims accrued after the initiation of this Complaint and thus, are necessarily unexhausted. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Continuance is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 51 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2