Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05723/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05723-9/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

CHARLES EDWARD JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CAREY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 98 5723 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING

PLAINTIFF BE PLACED ON THE COURT

MAILING LIST 

(Doc. 156.) 

Charles Edward Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in

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

On July 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion Request To Be Placed Back On

The Court Mailing List.” Plaintiff states that he wishes the Court provide him with a “case

update” and that he be placed back on the mailing list. Plaintiff states that the law firm of

O’Melveny and Myers was appointed by the 9th Circuit. 

According to the Court Docket, the law firm of O’Melveny and Myers is Counsel for

Plaintiff. Although the Court did not appoint counsel in this case, that does not preclude

Plaintiff from obtaining representation on his own, even if that representation stems from an

Order of the Ninth Circuit. In this case, Counsel from the law firm of O’Melveny and Myers has

made an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. As such, Alison Chase is Counsel of record and

Case 1:98-cv-05723-AWI -GSA Document 157 Filed 07/07/06 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

Plaintiff is no longer proceeding in propria persona and cannot file documents in his case in

addition to those submitted by counsel. Should Plaintiff wish to discharge counsel, such

arrangement must be made between him and the attorneys representing him. This must be done

without court assistance as representation has not occurred pursuant to an Order of this Court. 

In addition, it is inappropriate for Plaintiff to file Motions seeking case updates. 

Generally, as long as a party keeps the Court informed of his current address, he will receive all

Orders issued in his case. Here, however, as Plaintiff is being represented by Counsel, his

attorney will receive all documents. Unless and until Plaintiff is no longer being represented, he

will not be placed on the “court mailing list.” Nevertheless, Plaintiff should continue to keep the

Court informed of his current address. Plaintiff is again informed that as he is being represented

by Counsel, he may not also litigate this action by filing his own pleadings. 

According to the Court record, currently pending before the Court is a Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff has filed an Opposition and

appears to be diligently representing Plaintiff’s interests. Should Plaintiff wish to consult with

his attorneys, he should contact Alison Chase from the law firm of O’Melveny and Myers as that

is the individual on record as Counsel for Plaintiff. As noted above, however, Plaintiff may not

file pleadings in this action in addition to those being filed by his attorney. 

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to be placed on the mailing list is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-05723-AWI -GSA Document 157 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2