Silverman v. Ivers, 17-03700 BLF (PR). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181115982
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTION (Docket No. 36) BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ("HCCF"), for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Court found the second amended complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on Defendants. (Docket No. 18.) Plaintiff has filed a "motion for good cause f
Summary: ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTION (Docket No. 36) BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ("HCCF"), for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Court found the second amended complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on Defendants. (Docket No. 18.) Plaintiff has filed a "motion for good cause fo..
More
ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTION
(Docket No. 36)
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Humboldt County Correctional Facility ("HCCF"), for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The Court found the second amended complaint stated cognizable claims and ordered the matter served on Defendants. (Docket No. 18.)
Plaintiff has filed a "motion for good cause for physical examination," specifically for a court appointed neurologist to examine him for nerve damage, which the Court construes as a motion for preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 36.) Plaintiff was advised in the Court's order of service that he must serve Defendants with any such motion because notice to the adverse party is required under Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Docket No. 18 at 3.) Plaintiff has failed to serve the motion on Defendants. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to refiling with an accompanying certificate of service indicating that he served the motion on Defendants so that they can have an opportunity to file a response.
This order terminates Docket No. 36.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
