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.

Martin v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

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


April 21, 2009

ERIC MARTIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 12, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Sacramento County, Petersen, B. Painter, Cakalach and Kearsing to provide responses to his request for production of documents. However, in plaintiff's March 9, 2009 reply to defendants' opposition, plaintiff abandoned the motion to compel on all issues regarding production of documents except as to those photographs produced in response to plaintiff's November 27, 2008 request for production of documents No. 14. Plaintiff contends that the copies of photos provided to plaintiff were "totally blacked out." Plaintiff states he would like to use these photographs in his pretrial statement and asks the court to obtain legible photographs for use at trial.

Good cause appearing, defendants will be directed to provide plaintiff with legible copies of those photographs provided to plaintiff in response to his November 27, 2008 request for production of documents No. 14. Defendants will be required to submit the original photographs as trial exhibits for use at trial by any party. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied.

On April 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to extend his time to file a pretrial statement and an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff states that he was told to pack his property in preparation for his April 6 transfer to Mule Creek State Prison. On April 6, however, plaintiff was not transferred but his property was put on the bus. Plaintiff has filed the appropriate administrative paperwork seeking return of his property or transfer to join his property, but to date he has not received a response.

Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be granted an extension of time in which to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Counsel for moving defendants will be directed to inquire as to the status of plaintiff's property and report the status of plaintiff's property to this court within twenty days from the date of this order. The pretrial conference and jury trial dates were vacated on October 14, 2008. Plaintiff is advised that a new deadline for filing pretrial statements will be set in an order following resolution of the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's request for extension of time to file a pretrial statement will be denied as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's February 12, 2009 motion to compel is partially granted. Defendants shall provide plaintiff with legible copies of those photographs provided to plaintiff in response to his November 27, 2008 request for production of documents No. 14. Defendants shall submit the original photographs as trial exhibits for use at trial by any party. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.

2. Plaintiff's April 10, 2009 motion is partially granted; plaintiff is granted an additional sixty days in which to file an opposition to defendants' April 3, 2009 motion for summary judgment. In all other respects, plaintiff's motion is denied.

3. Counsel for moving defendants shall inquire as to the status of plaintiff's property and report the status of plaintiff's property to this court within twenty days from the date of this order.

20090421

© 1992-2009 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.