Opinion
23-cv-04883-JST
02-21-2024
KEVIN LEE MCCULLOM, Plaintiff, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING ECF NO. 13; GRANTING REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION RE: ECF NOS. 12-17
JON S. TIGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Merced County Jail, has filed a civil rights action. This order addresses ECF Nos. 12-17 and GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to file a complete in forma pauperis application.
BACKGROUND
On September 25, 2023, the day this action was opened, the Court informed Plaintiff that this action was deficient because, among other things, Plaintiff had not paid the $402.00 filing fee or filed an in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 3. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the full filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis application by November 20, 2023, or face dismissal of this action. ECF No. 3. On November 6, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to December 8, 2023 to file a complete in forma pauperis application, and requested that the Merced County Sheriff's Office assist Plaintiff in submitting a complete in forma pauperis application by providing Plaintiff with the necessary documents. ECF No. 11. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed an in forma pauperis application or any of the required supporting documentation. However, in one of Plaintiff's other cases before this Court, C No. 23-cv-6553 JST, McCullom v. Alameda Cty District Atty's Office, he has filed a complete in forma pauperis application. See C No. 23-cv-06553 JST, McCullom v. Alameda Cty. District Atty's Office, Dkt. No. 6.
DISCUSSION
I. ECF No. 12
In ECF No. 12, Plaintiff objects to this case being assigned to the undersigned, stating that he has declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, that the reassignment to the undersigned is suspicious, that he does not want this case to be heard by the undersigned, and that he is entitled to a “fair federal proceeding at action at law suit in equity.” ECF No. 12 at 1. The undersigned is not a magistrate judge, so assignment of this case to the undersigned does not require Plaintiff's consent.
This action was properly assigned to the undersigned pursuant to the Court's Assignment Plan, which is set forth in General Order No. 44. Section D.6. of General Order 44 provides that “the Clerk shall assign any non-habeas civil complaint filed by a prisoner within five (5) years after the filing of the first civil complaint by that party to the same judge to whom the first such complaint was assigned.” N.D. Cal. General Order No. 44 Section D.6. Plaintiff is a frequent litigant, as discussed in further detail below. Previously, Plaintiff's civil cases were assigned to Judge Thelton E. Henderson for a five-year period. After that five-year period ended, Plaintiff's civil cases were assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd for a brief period. C No. 16-cv-0045 BLF, McCullom v. McGat et al. (“McGat”), was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd. However, because Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction in McGat, the case was reassigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Plaintiff's civil cases for the five years following McGat were assigned to Judge Freeman. When Plaintiff filed C No. 23-cv-04637, In re McCullom, on or about September 11, 2023, the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman pursuant to the Court's assignment plan. At the time the case was opened, the Court sent Plaintiff a consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction form. Plaintiff did not return this form. Accordingly, on October 19, 2023, because Plaintiff had not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, the Court reassigned C No. 23-cv-04637, In re McCullom, to the undersigned pursuant to the Court's assignment plan. See N.D. Cal. General Order No. 44 Sections D, E. Pursuant to the Court's assignment plan, any civil cases filed by Plaintiff between September 11, 2023 and September 10, 2028, including this action, are assigned to the undersigned. See id. § D.
Since filing C No. 23-cv-04637 JST, In re McCullom, Plaintiff has filed three more civil rights actions, all of which were assigned to the undersigned, as required by the Court's assignment plan: this action (C No. 23-cv-04883 JST, McCullom v. Warden); C No. 23-cv-05902 JST, In re McCullom; and C No. 23-cv-06553 JST, McCullom v. Alameda Cty. District Attorney's Office.
II. ECF No. 13
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting “leave to secure the other two consents for the temporary restraining order and permanent injunction in support of the exhibits provided to the U.S. District Court regarding the forgeries and unlawful usages of Superior Court of California, County of Merced ‘fake' probable cause documents details ‘fake' search warrants and affidavits to have enumerate numbers of African Americans and Hispanics kidnapped of (sic) the streets of the County of Merced in relation to the Alameda County Dublin Superior Court case dismissal on (6/9/2022) as a retaliatory claim of me being of the African American race.” ECF No. 13. The motion makes numerous allegations concerning various jail officials and judicial officers. The motion is incomprehensible, and it is unclear what relief Plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff has not filed a request for a temporary restraining order or a request for a preliminary injunction, and the persons named in this motion are not named defendants. ECF No. 13 is therefore DENIED.
III. ECF Nos. 14-17
On December 7, 2023, the Court docketed three letters from Plaintiff. ECF Nos. 14-16. In these letters, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file his in forma pauperis application, alleging that the Merced County Sheriff's Office is preventing him from filing an in forma pauperis application. ECF Nos. 14-16. Plaintiff also makes numerous other allegations: the Merced County Sheriff's Office is engaged in a conspiracy that targets African Americans, including Plaintiff; various parties are engaged in misconduct related to his state court felony case, Dublin County Superior Court C No. 18-cr-18020; the Northern District of California is attempting to manipulate this case, as evidenced by the December 8, 2023, dismissal of one of his cases; information is being unlawfully entered into the F.B.I.'s “Master Intelligence System N.C. I.C. National Crime Information Center” and the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication (C.L.E.T.S.); California state officials are knowingly procuring or offering false probable cause documents, false search warrants and affidavits; there is a conspiracy to kidnap Blacks and Hispanics from the streets and unlawfully seek criminal convictions against them by using NCIC and CLETS; he is being unlawfully held in a segregation unit at the Merced County Jail; court officials and jail staff have acted unlawfully in order to have Plaintiff placed in state hospitals and forcibly medicated; California state actors have carried out unlawful robbery and extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act; Plaintiff was previously wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder in Alameda County Superior Court C No. 17082B and state actors have conspired to unlawfully change this case number of C No. 175028B to conceal their wrongdoing; a state court judge conspired with Klu Klux Klan men and women to have his two children kidnapped and killed on October 3, 2022. See generally ECF Nos. 14-16.
On January 12, 2024, the Court docketed another letter from Plaintiff wherein he again alleged that Merced County Sheriff's Office officials were preventing him from completing his in forma pauperis application by refusing to provide the necessary forms. ECF No. 17.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time to February 16, 2024 to file a complete in forma pauperis application. Given that Plaintiff has been able to file an in forma pauperis application in a separate case, it appears that Merced County Sheriff's Office officials are cooperating with Plaintiff in preparing his in forma pauperis applications.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders as follows.
1. The Court DENIES ECF No. 13.
2. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's requests for an extension of time to file his in forma pauperis application. ECF Nos. 14-16. By February 16, 2024, Plaintiff should file an in forma pauperis application filled out to the best of his ability. Failure to file an in forma pauperis application in the time provided will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure comply with a court order.
This order terminates ECF Nos. 13-16.
IT IS SO ORDERED.