IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 20, 2009
CHADERICK A. INGRAM, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff has filed numerous unnecessary or improper documents, all of which will be disregarded or denied pursuant to this order.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss and joint statement in response to motion to dismiss (Docs. No. 16, 19) will be disregarded because the defendant has not filed a motion to dismiss;
2. Plaintiff's pretrial statement (Doc. No. 18) will be disregarded because the document has been filed prematurely;
3. Plaintiff's responses to defendant's initial discovery disclosure (Doc. Nos. 20, 21) will be disregarded because no such responses are authorized;
4. Plaintiff's request for admission (Doc. No. 23), response to defendant's request for admissions (Doc. No. 25), response to defendant's interrogatories (Doc. No. 26), and response to defendant's request for inspection and production of documents (Doc. No. 27) will be disregarded because the documents have been filed in violation of Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c), and 36-250(c);
5. Plaintiff's request for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22) is denied without prejudice because the filing does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56-260; and
6. Plaintiff's document titled "Court Decision," which has been docketed in error as an amended complaint (Doc. No. 28), will be disregarded because it has not been submitted pursuant to any rule or statute and lacks merit.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.