Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01066/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01066-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelvin Felton
Plaintiff
S. Harrison
Defendant
J. Lopez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

KELVIN FELTON, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01066-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPLICATION OF NON-PRISONER 

PROVISIONS IN LOCAL RULES

(Doc. 72.) 

I. BACKGROUND

Kelvin Felton (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on June 29, 2012, against defendants J. Lopez and S. 

Harrison (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) On May 2, 2014, Defendants appeared in this action. 

(Docs. 38, 39.) On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits 

the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 68.)

On April 9, 2015, Defendants filed a request for application of non-prisoner provisions 

in the Local Rules in this action. (Doc. 72.)

II. LOCAL RULE 230(l)

Local Rule 230 governs the Court=s civil motion calendar and procedure. Rule 230(l) 

provides exceptions to the rule for motions in prisoner cases, defined as Acases wherein one 

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 73 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona.@ L.R. 230(l).1 The main exception to 

the rule is that motions in prisoner cases are Asubmitted upon the record without oral argument 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court.@ Id.

Defendants seek relief from Local Rule 230(l). Defendants note that on April 6, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he has been released from prison and 

now resides in San Diego, California. (Doc. 71.)

At the time Plaintiff=s action was filed, Plaintiff was incarcerated at a correctional 

institution and was proceeding in propria persona. Therefore, the Court designated the case as 

a prisoner case. (See Court Docket.) As noted by Defendants, on April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

a notice of change of address, indicating that he was recently released, and notifying the court 

of his residence at a street address in San Diego, California. (Doc. 71.) 

Defendants correctly observe that, due to Plaintiff=s change in custody, this case does 

not currently fit within the definition of a prisoner case as stated in Rule 230(l). However, for 

practical reasons, when a case is designated a prisoner case at the Court, the designation usually 

remains the same until the case is closed. The Court is obligated by law to follow distinctly 

different rules and procedures when managing prisoner case litigation, and continuity is 

necessary for the Court to manage its docket. Although the Court is certainly not suggesting, 

nor in any way indicating, what may occur in the present case, it does take note that in some 

 

1 Local Rule 230(l) provides:

"All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in actions wherein one 

party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record 

without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be noticed 

on the motion calendar. Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and 

filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21),days after the date of service of the 

motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and 

file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the 

responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a 

waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of 

sanctions. The moving party may, not more than seven (7) days after the opposition is served, 

serve and file a reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted when the 

time to reply has expired." L.R. 230(l).

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 73 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

other instances a prisoner who has been released from custody is was later returned to custody, 

and then released again at a later time. This Court has hundreds of pending prisoner cases, and 

it would create an enormous burden, with little benefit, to change the designation of a case, 

with the resultant procedural changes, with each change in a litigant=s custody status. For these 

reasons, this case shall remain a prisoner case at this time, and Defendants’ motion shall be 

denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for the application of 

non-prisoner provisions in Local Rules in this action, filed on April 9, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01066-AWI-BAM Document 73 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 3