Mack v. Bertholf, 2:18-cv-0636 MCE CKD P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191023978
Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendant Bertholf is a Correctional Officer at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton. On May 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court order defendant to respond to certain discovery requests. In response to the motion, counsel for defendant indicates that defendant's responses were served on plaintif
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendant Bertholf is a Correctional Officer at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton. On May 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court order defendant to respond to certain discovery requests. In response to the motion, counsel for defendant indicates that defendant's responses were served on plaintiff..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant Bertholf is a Correctional Officer at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton. On May 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court order defendant to respond to certain discovery requests. In response to the motion, counsel for defendant indicates that defendant's responses were served on plaintiff on May 23, 2019. Counsel for defendant also asserts she spoke with plaintiff on May 30, 2019 and plaintiff acknowledged his motion to compel is moot. Plaintiff did not file a reply to defendant's opposition. For all these reasons, the motion to compel will be denied.
On October 10, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion asking that the court order officials at plaintiff's prison to provide plaintiff with access to certain personal property items, including documents relating to this case, to which access has been denied. However, plaintiff's motion is not signed as is required under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied without prejudice to refiling a signed motion. If plaintiff refiles his motion, plaintiff is informed that, as to any items sought, plaintiff must show why he presently requires access to the items to pursue remaining claims.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's May 30, 2019 motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is denied.
2. Plaintiff's October 10, 2019 motion (ECF No. 45) is denied without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
