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.

Alexander v. Fitzgerald

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


May 19, 2010

ALEXIOS ALEXANDER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SEAN FITZGERALD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has two motions pending before the court.

First, on April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting the date and time that his USM-286 forms were served upon defendants. However, this information is already available to plaintiff in an attachment to defendants' executed waivers of summons.*fn1

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's request as moot.

Second, on April 21, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court direct defendants to produce discovery. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to obtain from defendants onboard patrol vehicle camera recordings and call-for-service records. On May 17, 2010, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this case. Therefore, plaintiff may now propound discovery requests directly to the defendants through their counsel. As explained in the court's May 17, 2010 discovery and scheduling order, parties shall not file discovery requests with the court except when required by Local Rules 250.1(a), 250.2(c), 250.3(c) and 250.4(c). The court will consider a motion to compel discovery only after the parties have exhausted all good faith efforts to obtain such through the ordinary course of discovery. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's request for an order directing defendants to produce discovery as premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's April 12, 2010 motion requesting the date and time in which his USM-286 forms were served on defendants (Doc. No. 18) is denied as moot; and

2. Plaintiff's April 21, 2010 motion requesting a court order directing the production of records (Doc. No. 21) is denied as premature.


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.