IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2009
REGINALD SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
B. NAKU, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several of plaintiff's motions.
On June 19, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion styled "Petitioner Respond and Motion to Oppose..." In his motion, plaintiff simply states that he wishes to address the motion at hand. He has attached to his motion a copy of his typed responses to defendant Naku's first set of requests for production of documents, first set of interrogatories, and first set of requests for admissions. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion styled "Petitioner's Motion to Compel Defendant to Responses." He has attached to his motion various documents, including copies of his administrative appeals and prison officials responses thereto, copies of his medical records, and copies of his health care services request forms. Finally, on August 10, 2009, plaintiff filed the same "Petitioner's Motion to Compel Defendant to Responses," but he did not attach any documents to it.
The court will deny plaintiff's motions because it is not clear what the basis of his motions are or what relief he seeks. In fact, it appears that plaintiff may be merely trying respond to defendant Naku's discovery requests. If this is the case, he is advised that discovery requests served on an opposing party and a party's responses to discovery requests should not be filed with the court unless a party is dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or responses thereto, except as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's June 19, 2009 and August 10, 2009 motions (Doc. Nos. 63, 64 & 67) are denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.