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.

Baker v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 30, 2009

THESOLONIA BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peggy A. Leen United States Magistrate Judge

(Mtn for Discovery - Dkt. #22) (Mtn for Interrogatories - Dkt. #26)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #22) and Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories (Dkt. #26). The court has considered the motions.

Plaintiff brought this civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was retaliated against by various prison officials. The court screened the Amended Complaint (Dkt. #7) and entered an Order (Dkt. #10) allowing Plaintiff to proceed with claims against R. Bishop, D. Lytle, and G. Parker (together, the "Defendants") for retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of his First Amendment rights. See Order, Dkt. #10 at 2:7-9. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have retaliated against him by issuing erroneous rules violation charges, improperly searching his cell, confiscating his property, deeming Plaintiff a gang member, and obstructing Plaintiff's efforts relating to his appeal regarding prison officials' attempt to incite African-American inmates. See Order at 4:1-5, Dkt. #5. Plaintiff propounded various discovery requests, including requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #22) appears to be a copy of the requests for production of documents. Plaintiff's Motion for Interrogatories (Dkt. #26) appears to be a copy of the interrogatories.

Plaintiff is advised that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this court, he is not required to file his requests for written discovery with the court as a motion. Instead, he should simply serve those requests upon opposing counsel. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, 34; LR 33-250, 34-250. Plaintiff is further advised that he need not seek leave of court to conduct discovery. Lastly, it appears that Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's requests for production of documents, as evidenced by the Motion to Compel (Dkt. #25) and Response thereto (Dkt. #29) currently pending before the court.

Accordingly, having reviewed and considered the matter, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #22) and the Motion for Interrogatories (Dkt. #26) shall be DENIED AS MOOT.

20090930

© 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.