IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 1, 2009
MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, PLAINTIFF,
B. PADILLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed three documents which appear to be plaintiff's attempts to either obtain discovery from defendants, or to have the court investigate and obtain records on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff appears to believe the court must investigate and obtain information to support plaintiff's case in this court.
Plaintiff is mistaken. Plaintiff is responsible for obtaining evidence in support of his case and for prosecuting the actions he brought in federal court.
As plaintiff was previously informed, court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. See May 29, 2009 Order. If plaintiff is dissatisfied with a discovery response, he must file a motion to compel defendant to provide the response pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Said motion must also comply with this court's Local Rules, including, but not limited to Local Rule 78-230.
In his August 17, 2009 filing, plaintiff stated, "I want the court to get this information and review it. I have enough things to stress on as it is. . . I stress out on paperwork." (Id. at 2 [docket no. 52].)
The court understands that being involved in a lawsuit is stressful, and that prosecuting an action pro se involves more stress and a great deal of paperwork. However, plaintiff is advised that he must prosecute his own action; the court is not allowed to investigate his claims or seek records on his behalf. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in prosecuting this action.
Further, plaintiff is cautioned that if he is unable or unwilling to follow the court's rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may recommend that his action be dismissed. The court has the power to control its docket and the cases pending before it. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992) A litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that he is overusing or abusing court resources in the pursuit of frivolous or non-frivolous actions. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989).
In his August 21, 2009 filing, plaintiff provided a copy of defendants Ben Padilla and Robert Chambers' response and objection to plaintiff's notice to produce a copy of the police report. Good cause appearing, defendants will be directed to file a copy of the February 1, 2008 police report with the court, under seal.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's August 17, 2009 notices to produce (docket nos. 51 & 52) will be placed in the court file and disregarded;
2. Within twenty days from the date of this order, defendants shall complete and file the appended "Notice of Filing," along with a copy of the February 1, 2008 police report, under seal.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the police report under seal.
PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER
Counsel for defendants hereby submits a copy of the February 1, 2008 police report, to be filed under seal, pursuant to the order of John F. Moulds, United States Magistrate Judge.
Police Report DATED:
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.