IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 2, 2010
ROBERT GUY BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff's October 17, 2007 complaint. Pending before the court are three of plaintiff's motions and defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff's first motion asks the court to order his warden to cease delaying his legal mail. Dckt. No. 22. Plaintiff's current warden is not a party to this action, and the court cannot issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). See also Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) ("A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court."). The motion is denied.
Plaintiff's second motion is to compel discovery responses. Dckt. No. 23. In this motion, dated December 21, 2008, plaintiff claimed that he had not received defendant's discovery responses. Apparently unbeknownst to plaintiff, defendant had filed a request for an extension of time to serve the discovery responses on December 19, 2008. Dckt. No. 19. The court granted defendant's request for an extension of time on December 30, 2008. Dckt. No. 20. Therefore, plaintiff's request for relief is moot and the motion is denied.
Plaintiff's third motion is also a discovery motion. Dckt. No. 26. The motion is titled "Notice of Motions, Motion in Request for Production of Documents (Second Reqst); Rule 34; and Motion for Protective Orders Under Rule 26(c) . . ." Plaintiff states that he "objects to defendant's response to plaintiffs response to request no. 4, 7, 8," asks "that he be entitled to receive the aforementioned requests," and makes a statement regarding his willingness to stipulate to a protective order on the documents requested "if defendant refuses once again." Plaintiff asks the court "to compel a response from defendant or order."
Defendant has not responded to plaintiff's discovery motion. Per paragraph seven of the court's August 8, 2008 order in this case and the local rules, defendant should have timely filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to plaintiff's motion. Defendant is ordered to do so. Plaintiff may then file a reply brief. The parties are ordered to attach copies of all relevant documents to their briefs.
As there remains a discovery dispute in this case, defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Defendant may renew his motion after the court resolves this discovery dispute. Defendant may either file an amended motion including a new brief and supporting documents, or simply renew the one previously filed by filing a notice of such renewal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's December 30, 2008 request for an order compelling CSP-SAC warden not to delay plaintiff's mail is denied.
2. Plaintiff's December 30, 2008 motion to compel is denied.
3. Defendant is ordered to file an opposition or a statement of no opposition to plaintiff's February 5, 2009 discovery motion within 21 days of this order. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant's opposition within 7 days after the opposition is served.
4. Defendant's June 15, 2009 motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice. Defendant may re-file or re-notice the motion within 30 days after the court issues a ruling on plaintiff's February 5, 2009 motion. Plaintiff may then file a revised opposition within 21 days of defendant's motion, and defendant may file a reply within 14 days after that.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.