(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, JR., No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are pending before the court. 20 Plaintiff’s Requests to Utilize Electronic Filing 21 Plaintiff filed four requests to utilize electronic filing. (ECF Nos. 67, 76, 77, 79.) On 22 June 9, 2021, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s previous request to utilize electronic filing. (ECF 23 No. 48.) For the reasons stated in the June 9, 2021 order, plaintiff’s pending requests to utilize 24 electronic filing are denied. 25 Plaintiff’s Request to Use a Computer Tablet 26 Plaintiff requests that the court order an investigation into why he is not allowed to use his 27 computer tablet. (ECF No. 65.) When plaintiff filed this request, he was housed at the California 28 Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). On October 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of change of 1 address indicating that he is now housed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). 2 Because plaintiff is no longer housed at CHCF, his request for an investigation into why 3 prison officials at CHCF will not let him use his computer tablet is moot. See Weinstein v. 4 Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). 5 Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for an investigation into why CHCF prison officials will not 6 allow him to use his computer tablet is denied as moot. 7 Plaintiff’s Requests for an Investigation into Mail Tampering 8 Plaintiff filed three requests for an order directing an investigation into mail tampering. 9 (ECF Nos. 67, 75, 76.) When plaintiff filed these requests, he was housed at CHCF. Because 10 plaintiff is no longer housed at CHCF, his requests for an investigation into mail tampering at 11 CHCF are moot. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 12 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, plaintiff’s requests for an investigation into mail 13 tampering by CHCF officials are denied as moot. 14 Plaintiff’s Requests for a Settlement Conference 15 Plaintiff filed three requests for a settlement conference. (ECF Nos. 68, 71, 75.) The 16 court will set a settlement conference if all parties consent to participate. The defendants have not 17 consented to participate in a settlement conference. Accordingly, plaintiff’s requests for a 18 settlement conference are denied without prejudice to a joint request. 19 Plaintiff’s Request for Special Verdicts Pursuant to Rule 49(a) 20 Plaintiff requests special verdicts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49(a). (ECF 21 No. 75.) Plaintiff’s request for special verdicts is denied as premature because this action has not 22 been set for trial. 23 Plaintiff’s Request for a Ruling on the July 15, 2021 Findings and Recommendations 24 Plaintiff requests that the court rule on the July 15, 2021 findings and recommendations. 25 (ECF No. 79.) On October 20, 2021, the Honorable John A. Mendez adopted the July 15, 2021 26 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 84.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for the court to 27 rule on the July 15, 2021 findings and recommendations is denied as moot. 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 65, 2 || 67, 68, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79), as discussed in this order, are denied. 3 | Dated: October 22, 2021 Fens Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 Dr1665.ord(3) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28