Lear v. Corcoran State Prison, 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-JDP. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190822a42
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ECF No. 82 JEREMY D. PETERSON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's claims against defendant Mansour for medical deliberate indifference and against California State Prison, Corcoran for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Documents before the court prepared by unrepresented parties are "construed liberall
Summary: ORDER ON REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ECF No. 82 JEREMY D. PETERSON , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's claims against defendant Mansour for medical deliberate indifference and against California State Prison, Corcoran for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Documents before the court prepared by unrepresented parties are "construed liberally..
More
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
ECF No. 82
JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's claims against defendant Mansour for medical deliberate indifference and against California State Prison, Corcoran for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Documents before the court prepared by unrepresented parties are "construed liberally." See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). The docket reflects that plaintiff has had difficulty obtaining and filing documents pertinent to this litigation, resulting in numerous extensions. See ECF Nos. 68, 71, 73. To the extent that plaintiff's additional evidentiary filings have bearing on either of the pending motions for summary judgment and are admissible under the rules of evidence, they will be considered. Defendants may file their opposition(s) accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
