Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00790/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00790-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS KENNETH MILLS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-00790 GEB KJM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On April 28, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in

forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee.

On May 2, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for “modification or accommodation.” 

The document consists of a number of pages from cases, a copy of a prison form to be used by

prisoners with disabilities and disjointed descriptions of certain incidents. 

According to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion

“shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.” 

The rule’s “particularity requirement” is designed “to give notice of the basis for the motion to

the court and the opposing party so as to avoid prejudice, ‘providing that party with a meaningful

opportunity to respond and the court with enough information to process the motion correctly.’” 

Case 2:05-cv-00790-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 05/04/05 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

2

Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc, 336 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s filing of

May 2, 2005 does not meet this standard, for it does not include sufficient information to permit

the court “to process the motion correctly.” This court does not have a duty to “sort[] through

irrelevant submissions.” Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 123 n.2 (D. Md. 1981). 

Although the court is mindful of plaintiff’s pro se status and its obligation to

construe pro se pleadings leniently, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1978), a pro se

plaintiff must nevertheless “adhere to the rudimentary dictates of civil procedure.” Holsey,

90 F.R.D. at 125. Plaintiff has failed to do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 2, 2005 request for

modification or accommodation is denied. 

DATED: May 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

mill0790.mot

Case 2:05-cv-00790-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2