Opinion
No. CIV S-07-1043 FCD JFM P.
June 21, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). On June 13, 2007, plaintiff was ordered to file the form within thirty days.
On June 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion to Retract Complaint," which was accompanied by a different complaint naming all new defendants and raising different claims than those contained in plaintiff's original complaint filed June 1, 2007. In his motion to retract complaint, plaintiff seeks to retract the original complaint. Although it is not entirely clear from plaintiff's motion, it appears he wishes the court to file the accompanying new complaint in place of the original complaint.
However, plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause to retract the original complaint. Accordingly, the appended complaint will be placed in the court file and no further action will be taken on that filing.
Plaintiff also asked the court to provide him a copy of his June 18, 2007 complaint. However, the Clerks's Office does not provide copies of documents to parties. Copies of documents may be obtained from Attorney's Diversified Services (ADS): 1424 21st Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Their phone number is 916-441-4396. The court will provide copies of the docket sheet at $0.50 per page. Checks in the exact amount are made payable to "Clerk, USDC." Even if plaintiff were granted in forma pauperis status, in forma pauperis status does not include the cost of copies.
The court notes that plaintiff's filings are very difficult to read, primarily because plaintiff writes using tiny letters. Because all documents are now electronically scanned, it would assist the court in reviewing plaintiff's claims if he increased the size of his printing.
Finally, plaintiff has filed thirteen (13) separate actions in this court since January 1, 2006. Plaintiff is cautioned that the court has the power to control its docket and the cases pending before it. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.),cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). A litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that he is overusing or abusing court resources in the pursuit of frivolous or nonfrivolous actions. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). In an earlier filed case, the judge noted that the filing of that action constituted an abuse of process. See No. CIV S-06-0940 GEB GGH P, October 31, 2006 Findings and Recommendations, at 3.
A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's June 18, 2007 motion to retract his original complaint is denied. The document appended to that filing will be placed in the court file and no further action will be taken on it.
2. Plaintiff's request for a copy of his original complaint is denied.
3. Plaintiff is reminded that he has until July 12, 2007 in which to comply with this court's order of June 13, 2007. Failure to timely comply with that order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.