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.

Battiste v. Walker

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


October 6, 2010

EDWARD A. BATTISTE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN JAMES WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a putative motion for discovery on June 30, 2010. At the time of filing of the defective motion, the court had not yet directed service of the complaint, which occurred by Order, filed on July 9, 2010. Defendant subsequently answered the complaint on September 10, 2010, and a Discovery and Scheduling Order was filed on September 16, 2010.

In his premature and inapposite motion, plaintiff moves for "case settlement" and "relief in full." Motion, p. 1. Plaintiff asks the court "to pull the housing requirements/restrictions to 'A'-yard['] 6-block." Id. at 2. Plaintiff is evidently seeking information to ascertain whether or not this unit is wheelchair-accessible. Id. Within the motion, he claims that his injury could have been avoided had he been housed properly. Id. Plaintiff asks the court to take action quickly so that no one else is injured. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff is essentially and inappropriately asking this court to conduct discovery for him. Plaintiff may serve discovery requests on his own behalf, in accordance with the Discovery and Scheduling Order, including interrogatories (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33) and requests for production of documents (Fed. R. Civ. P. 34), relating to the information regarding housing restrictions he seeks or any other information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the allegations of his complaint. Should plaintiff take issue with the defendant's responses, or lack thereof, to properly framed discovery requests served by plaintiff, plaintiff may then proceed to file a motion to compel discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for discovery, filed on June 30, 2010 (docket # 15), is denied.

20101006

© 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.