Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03057/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03057-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELMER EUGENE WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3057 SI (pr)

ORDER

This action was dismissed and judgment was entered on December 21, 2005. The court

recently learned that the Ninth Circuit is waiting for a ruling on a document filed by plaintiff

after the judgment was entered. 

The court received on December 22, 2005, a document entitled "TRO," that had been

mailed by plaintiff on December 18, 2005, and apparently crossed in the mail with the order of

dismissal and judgment. The "TRO" received on December 22, 2005, had the same defects as

the "TRO" discussed in the order of dismissal, i.e., it complained about conditions of

confinement at Mule Creek State Prison and was beyond the scope of the complaint. As the

court stated in the order of dismissal, to the extent plaintiff wishes to complain about the

conditions of confinement at Mule Creek State Prison, he should file a civil rights complaint in

the Eastern District of California, because that is the district in which that prison is located. The

TRO request is DENIED. (Docket # 11.) 

Case 3:05-cv-03057-SI Document 18 Filed 03/20/07 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

The next document plaintiff filed was filed on December 28, 2005, and was entitled

"Objection To The Dismissal And Reinstate Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 And TRO." (Docket # 12.)

In that document, plaintiff repeatedly expressed the thoughts that theft was not frivolous and that

judges who thought it was should be killed. He also stated that he would "take my case to the

American people" and "to the news!" Id. at 1, 2. He did not request any relief. Nonetheless,

the Ninth Circuit construed the document to be a timely-filed Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(a)(4) motion and held the appeal in abeyance pending its resolution. See Ninth

Circuit Order filed February 1, 2007. (Docket # 15.) Giving plaintiff's "Objection" an

extremely liberal construction consistent with the Ninth Circuit's order, the "Objection" might

be a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60 motion for relief. Regardless

whether the motion is construed as a Rule 59 or Rule 60(b) motion, it would fail because

plaintiff did not explain any reason warranting relief from the judgment. In dismissing this

action, the court did not state that theft was trivial; rather, the dismissal was based on the

repetitive nature of plaintiff's property claims. The court stated that the "filing of a complaint

alleging the same property damage/destruction claims that the court earlier dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is frivolous." Order Of Dismissal, p. 2. 

Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. (Docket # 12.) 

Plaintiff's "motion for notice of appeal" is construed to be a notice of appeal. (Docket #

13.) There being nothing further to be done in the district court, the clerk shall send the file to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03057-SI Document 18 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2