(PC) Heggie v. Shasta County Jail

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RANDALL E. HEGGIE, No. 2:20-cv-2484 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SHASTA CO. JAIL, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint in this court on December 16, 2020. In an order filed January 27, 2021, this court found plaintiff stated no claims for relief cognizable under § 1983. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint.

21 After he filed his complaint, plaintiff filed eight documents in which he complains of various things, including his state criminal proceedings, and alleges that he has a right to be released from jail and that jail employees are involved in criminal conduct. None of these issues appear to be relevant to this § 1983 action. Further, as plaintiff was advised in the court’s January 27 order, claims that he should be released from custody must be brought in a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff is reminded that he must exhaust his state court remedies before he files a habeas action in federal court.

28 //// 1 Plaintiff is cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted || access to the court when he has filed excessive documents in a pending action. DeLong v. | Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th | Cir. 1989). This court views the number of documents filed to date as excessive. Consideration | will be given to restricted court access if plaintiff does not exercise appropriate restraint in the | future.

7 For the foregoing reasons, the documents filed by plaintiff between December 28, 2020 | and January 14, 2021 (ECF Nos. 4-11) shall be disregarded.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 | Dated: January 29, 2021 Mga?» B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:9 || DB/prisoner-civil rights/hegg2484.excessive filings