Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-22/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

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM , et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION REGARDING

TRIAL PROCEDURE

(Doc. 100)

Plaintiff Darren Harris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 3, 2005. On September 12, 2012,

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to be fully informed on the exact manner in which trial will be

conducted, including the introduction of evidence. 

At this juncture, this action has not been set for trial. If this matter goes to trial, Plaintiff will

be transported to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California for trial and the trial judge

will, at that time, inform Plaintiff as is necessary regarding the proceedings. However, while

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is entitled to some leniency as a result, the Court cannot and will

not act as substitute counsel for Plaintiff. See Pliler v. Ford, 5452 U.S. 225, 231, 124 S.Ct. 2441,

2446 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.”)

///

///

///

///

///

1

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 106 Filed 11/29/12 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

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 106 Filed 11/29/12 Page 2 of 2