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.

Pamer v. Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 3, 2010

LAWRENCE PAMER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several motions Plaintiff has filed relating to his personal property, information on unserved defendants, and production of documents (Docs. 32, 60).

To the extent Plaintiff is requesting documents through discovery, that request is denied. Discovery will open and Plaintiff will have an opportunity to submit proper discovery requests to the defendants once an answer is filed and this case is at issue. Defendants are not obligated to produce any documents until that time. Once discovery is open, Plaintiff may utilize proper discovery methods to obtain the information he is seeking.

Plaintiff has also requested that defendants Tilton and Felker order their subordinates to produce, return or replace Plaintiff's personal property. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting the court issue an order against a non-party, this court is unable to issue such an order. The court cannot issue orders 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). The request must, therefore, be denied. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting a court order for the defendants to return his personal property, that request is beyond the scope of this action. At issue in this action is Plaintiff's medical care and safety. To the extent he believes prison officials have violated his due process rights, he may seek judicial intervention by separate action as appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for court order and motion to compel (Docs. 32, 60) are denied.

20100303

© 1992-2010 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.