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.

Meyer v. Smith

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


July 22, 2010

KEVIN RUSSELL MEYER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Two motions to compel filed by plaintiff on July 6, 2010 are before the court.

In the first motion, plaintiff asks that the court order that a non-party, Dr. James McSweeney, certify that certain documents in plaintiff's possession were in fact authored by McSweeney. The court has no authority to act on plaintiff's request. Although plaintiff served a subpoena on McSweeney requesting documents themselves, he did not follow up on McSweeney's response, that he did not have any documents, with another subpoena or formal discovery request such that the court can compel a response if such an order to compel is warranted. Therefore, plaintiff's request with respect to Dr. McSweeney will be denied without prejudice.

In the second motion, plaintiff asks that the court order the litigation coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison to "allow Stan Schlachter, Physical Therapist to produce a certified copy of his finding, diagnoses, and recommendation of plaintiff." Again, this is not a proper request. Plaintiff has not made a formal request via a subpoena or otherwise for anything from the litigation coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison. Therefore, the court has no authority to enter the order plaintiff seeks. Because the subpoena plaintiff references in his motion is directed to Stan Schlachter, plaintiff will be granted twenty-one days within which to file a motion to compel Mr. Schlachter to respond to plaintiff's subpoena.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's July 6, 2010 motions to compel "parties to produce certified documents" (docket nos. 23 and 25) are denied.

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days within which to file a motion to compel Stan Schlachter to respond to the subpoena referenced in the July 6, 2010 motion to compel directed to the litigation coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison (see docket no. 25).

20100722

© 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.