IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 3, 2011
PETER GRAVES, PLAINTIFF,
ERIC HOLDER, DEFENDANT.
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On November 23, 2010, the undersigned granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis; directed plaintiff to supply the United States Marshal, within 14 days, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process; and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process within 90 days of receipt of the required information from plaintiff, without prepayment of costs.*fn1 Dckt. No. 3. On December 14, 2010, plaintiff notified the court that he delivered the service materials to the U.S. Marshal on December 14, 2010, Dckt. No. 10, and on January 3, 2011, the U.S. Marshal informed the court that defendant was served on December 16 and 17, 2011 (with an answer due on February 14, 2011). Dckt. Nos. 11, 12.
Since the November 23 order, plaintiff has filed several miscellaneous requests with the court. Specifically, on December 10, 2010, plaintiff filed (1) a motion for defendant to be present during court proceedings in this action, Dckt. No. 6; (2) a motion to video-tape court proceedings for defendant's review if defendant "refuses to be present in the courtroom," Dckt. No. 7; (3) a motion to compel defendant to fill out a questionnaire prepared by plaintiff, Dckt. No. 8; and (4) a motion to compel certain third parties to fill out questionnaires prepared by plaintiff, Dckt. No. 9. Then, on January 19 and 26, 2011, plaintiff filed requests for rulings on his earlier motions. Dckt. Nos. 13, 14. Finally, on January 28 and 31, 2011, plaintiff filed two additional motions to compel third parties to fill out questionnaires prepared by plaintiff, and a "motion for leeway" relating to one of those motions to compel. Dckt. Nos. 15, 16, 17.
As an initial point, none of plaintiff's motions comply with the notice requirements set forth in the Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230, 251. Additionally, because defendant has not yet appeared in this action and because plaintiff's motions for defendant to be present during court proceedings and for court proceedings to be video-taped, Dckt. Nos. 6 and 7, are neither necessary nor ripe, those motions will be denied. Further, although plaintiff seeks to compel defendant and third parties to respond to his questionnaires, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) provides that "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) . . . ."*fn2 Here, defendant has not answered plaintiff's complaint and there is no indication that the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Therefore, plaintiff's motions to compel, Dckt. Nos. 8, 9, 15, and 17, and the related "motion for leeway" will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for defendant to be present during court proceedings, Dckt. No. 6, is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion to video-tape court proceedings, Dckt. No. 7, is denied;
3. Plaintiff's motions to compel, Dckt. Nos. 8, 9, 15, and 17, are denied;
4. Plaintiff's motion for leeway, Dckt. No. 16, is denied; and
5. Plaintiff's requests for rulings on his earlier motions, Dckt. Nos. 13 and 14, are denied as moot.
1915. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989) (The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized by Congress); Toliver v. Community Action Com'n to Help the Economy, Inc.,613 F. Supp. 1070, 1072 (D.C.N.Y. 1985).