Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

King v. California Dep't of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 11, 2008

KEVIN KING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur Alarcón United States Circuit Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff Kevin King filed an objection to Defendants' discovery practices. (Doc. 92). Specifically, Plaintiff stated that Stanton Lee obtained confidential information from Plaintiff's prison file, which is maintained by the Division of Adult Parole Operations Case Records. (Doc. 92). Plaintiff concedes that he does not know when the his information was accessed or what information was given to Defendants. (Doc. 92).

In response to Plaintiff's objection, Defendants informed this Court that Stanton Lee is the Deputy Attorney General assigned to another case currently in litigation with Plaintiff King. (Doc. 97). Defendants also explained that they received information from Plaintiff's central and medical file during his incarceration at High Desert State Prison in March 2006. (Doc. 97).

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a response that did not rebut or address Defendants' above contentions. (Doc. 101). Plaintiff merely reiterated his initial arguments and concerns. Plaintiff attached a "request" for documents to his response, (Doc. 101), which he annotated as follows, "This is an example of what defendants were seeking and is attachment A." (Doc. 101). The attached request is for Plaintiff's complete central file that included a litany of specific documents. The attachment does not bear a date or a signature, and therefore its authenticity is questionable.

While Plaintiff's concern that some of the requested documents may not be relevant may be valid, his present request for relief is not the method to contest the relevancy of the documents. This Court directs Plaintiff to review this Court's Pretrial Order. (Doc. 91). Moreover, Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence of misconduct on the part of the instant Defendants.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for relief is DENIED.

20080811

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.