The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bernard G. Skomal United States Magistrate Judge
(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO NAME PARTIES BY CAPTION &
(2) GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COPY OF UPDATED DOCKET AND FOR SEALED ENVELOPES
On June 21, 2010, Plaintiff Floyd Steveson Moody, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to §1983, filed a motion to name parties by caption (Doc. No. 64) and a motion for a copy of an updated docket and for sealed envelopes (Doc. No. 65). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to name parties by caption and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for copy of updated docket and for sealed envelopes.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Name Parties by Caption
Plaintiff has requested in his motion to name parties by caption that Plaintiff's name and Defendants Paulette Finander, K Ball, Richard Butcher, and Manoram Reddy continue to appear in the caption on all documents within this action. (Doc. No. 64 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that all parties should appear in the caption of all documents within this action because Defendants are "known" and not "unknown," as each defendant in this matter has been identified since the filing of the First Amended Complaint (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff has cited no legal support for his argument that every party must appear in the caption of every document within this action.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), "[t]he title of the complaint must name all parties; the title of other pleadings, after naming the first party on each side, may refer generally to other parties." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(a). This rule applies not only to pleadings, but also to "motions and other papers" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(2). Therefore, other than a complaint, captions need only name the first party on each side and then may refer generally to other parties.
In this case, Plaintiff Floyd Steveson Moody is the first and only plaintiff, and therefore his name must appear in the caption of all documents filed in this action. Defendant Paulette Finander is the first defendant named in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and therefore must be named in the caption of all documents. Captions of pleadings other than a complaint, motions, and other papers filed in this action may refer generally to the other defendants included in the caption of the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to name parties by caption as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require such a practice. The Court notes, however, that it will update the docket in this case to remove "Unknown" as a defendant, as Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint identifies by name the "unknown defendants" of Plaintiff's original Complaint and does not include any other "unknown defendants." (See Doc. No. 4.)
II. Plaintiff's Motion for Copy of Updated Docket
Plaintiff requests a copy of the updated docket sheet in this case be printed out and sent to him. (Doc. No. 65 at 1.) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request and ORDERS the Clerk's Office to mail an up-to-date print-out of the docket of this case to Plaintiff.
III. Plaintiff's request for Sealed Envelopes
Plaintiff also requests that all parties' correspondence sent to him in prison be securely sealed and not sealed with tape. (Doc. No. 65 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that envelopes not properly sealed or sealed with tape fail to protect the confidentiality of his legal mail and serves as an open invitation to view his mail. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that he never knew of and never received Defendant Richard Butcher's reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and only became aware of such reply upon receipt of the Court's Order on Defendant Butcher's motion to dismiss. (Id. at 5.)
In support of his request for sealed envelopes, Plaintiff cites various California prison regulations regarding confidential mail. (Id. at 4.) In reviewing the regulations cited by Plaintiff, there is no requirement for incoming confidential mail to be sealed in any particular fashion.*fn1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for sealed envelopes as he fails to cite any legal authority for a court order requiring envelopes to be sealed in a particular manner. However, the Court will ...