Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01918/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01918-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Defendant
Kelly Harrington
Defendant
Garrison S. Johnson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01918-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (DOC. 26)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION CONCERNING HIS LEGAL MAIL

(DOC. 28)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Matthew Cate and Kelly

Harrington have appeared in this action. On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed his first amended

complaint. Pending before the Court is 1) Defendants’ motion for clarification, filed February

10, 2012, and 2) Plaintiff’s motion regarding his legal mail, filed February 10, 2012. Docs. 26,

28.

Defendants request clarification as to whether the Court will screen Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s amended

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A prior to issuing any scheduling order.

Plaintiff requests that the Court direct the warden to produce proof that Plaintiff is being

provided his legal mail. Doc. 28. Plaintiff contends that officers at Kern Valley State Prison,

where Plaintiff is currently housed, are not providing him with his mail. Plaintiff request an

investigation by the California Attorney General’s Office. A review of the Court docket

indicates that Plaintiff’s mail was returned as undeliverable on November 28, 2011. Plaintiff

1

Case 1:10-cv-01918-LJO-DLB Document 31 Filed 03/20/12 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

listed the incorrect P.O. Box for his mailing address. Plaintiff failed to update his mailing

address with the Court. The Court has since updated the P.O. Box to reflect Plaintiff’s current

mailing address. Plaintiff is reminded that he is under an obligation to update the Court as to his

mailing address. L.R. 182(f). Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute. L.R. 183(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01918-LJO-DLB Document 31 Filed 03/20/12 Page 2 of 2