Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04913/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04913-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dexter Brown
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re

DEXTER BROWN, 

Plaintiff.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-4913 EMC (pr)

ORDER AMENDING ORDER OF

DISMISSAL AND ADDRESSING

OBJECTIONS TO ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

This action was dismissed on November 25, 2014, after the Court received from Mr. Brown

a letter in which he stated that “‘it was not [his] intent to initiate any sort of civil action’” when he

sent the letter earlier that month which caused this action to be opened. Docket # 6. After the

dismissal, Mr. Brown twice sent in “objections” to the order of dismissal. Docket # 8 and # 10. In

the objections, Mr. Brown does not indicate any desire to pursue a civil action, nor does he request

that this action be reopened. Rather, he wants the order of dismissal to “be amended to reflect the

true nature of plaintiff’s correspondence.” Docket # 10 at 1. 

The order of dismissal stated: “On November 5, 2014, the Court received from Dexter

Brown a letter complaining about the food service at the California Health Care Facility in

Stockton.” Docket # 6 at 1 (italics added). Mr. Brown urges that this statement “white-washed”

details of his letter, such as that he accused his “custodians of attempting to murder [him] by means

of adulterating [his] food with potassium.” Docket # 10 at 2-3. Mr. Brown also urges that, by

failing to recite in the order of dismissal all of Mr. Brown’s allegations and requests for action, the

Court was able to avoid launching an investigation into his allegations because, if the language was

“entered into the court record[, it] would invariably invoke [the court’s] legal obligation to act upon

complaints against my custodians.” Docket # 10 at 3-4. 

Case 3:14-cv-04913-EMC Document 11 Filed 04/21/15 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 order of dismissal will be, and now is, AMENDED to substitute the phrase “prison

conditions” for the phrase “food service” on line 13 of page 1 of the order of dismissal, i.e., Docket

# 6. That amendment makes the statement broad enough to cover the nature of plaintiff’s letter,

since he believes the order too narrowly defined the issue by referring to the letter as pertaining to

“food service.” 

In all other respects, Mr. Brown’s objections are OVERRULED, and the Court will not

otherwise amend the order of dismissal. A litigant has no right to demand that the Court recite all of

his allegations in an order. A lengthy recitation of a litigant or letter-writer’s statements would serve

no purpose because the Court’s recitation of allegations does not turn allegations into facts. Mr.

Brown’s letter containing his allegation are already part of the Court record. Further, Mr. Brown

misunderstands the function of the order of dismissal. The purpose of the order of dismissal was

simply to dismiss and close the action which Mr. Brown himself said he did not want to pursue. 

Even in his objections, Mr. Brown gives no indication that he actually wants to proceed with a civil

rights action or to file an in forma pauperis application, so there is no reason to reopen the action or

set aside the order of dismissal. Finally, the Court does not perform investigations or direct the

Department of Justice or the F.B.I. to do so. The Court adjudicates the disputes that are presented to

it when plaintiff files complaints. Mr. Brown has chosen not to file a complaint. 

If Mr. Brown wants to pursue a claim concerning prison conditions, he may file a new civil

action. The proper venue in which to file a civil rights complaint about events and omissions at the

California Health Care Facility in Stockton is the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04913-EMC Document 11 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 2