Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert M. Fuson
Plaintiff
Mike Martel
Defendant

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 Movant also alleges that he is challenging his conviction in other proceedings. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. FUSON, Pro per

Movant, No. 2:08-cv-0320-FCD-JFM (PC)

vs.

MIKE MARTEL, (Warden A)

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On February 11, 2008, movant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed in this

court a document styled “Motion to Release from Incarceration and Thereby Grant Movant

Extraordinary Relief from Deleterious Effect of Such Incarceration Due to Unconstitutional

Prison Overcrowding.” The motion was opened as the above-captioned action.

In the motion, movant contends that he is being subjected to overcrowded prison

conditions that are jeopardizing “his health, safety, and general welfare,” Motion, filed February

11, 2008, at 2, and he seeks release from incarceration due to the alleged unconstitutional

overcrowding. Movant specifically requests that the motion be “considered and ruled on by the 1

Federal 3-Judge panel considering issues dealing with California’s prison over-crowding crises.”

Motion, at 4.

Case 2:08-cv-00320-FCD-JFM Document 4 Filed 06/20/08 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

Movant is informed that the proceedings before the three-judge court have arisen

in two class action lawsuits and are ongoing in those lawsuits. The plaintiffs in those two class

action lawsuits are represented by attorneys, and all requests for relief from the three-judge court

must be filed by attorneys representing the parties before that court. The relief movant seeks is

not available through this individual pro se motion. If movant wishes to challenge the conditions

of his confinement in federal court he may do so, if at all, through an individual civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the

Court is directed to sent movant a form civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

accompany instructions; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 18, 2008.

12;fuso0320.56

Case 2:08-cv-00320-FCD-JFM Document 4 Filed 06/20/08 Page 2 of 2