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.

Lon Carter v. Nick Dawson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 17, 2011

LON CARTER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
NICK DAWSON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO COMPEL, MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF Nos. 111, 112, 113, 114)

Plaintiff Lon Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on September 11, 2007. (ECF No. 1.) On January 30, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an order finding that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Dawson and Mendoza-Powers for policies creating unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No.6.) On May 10, 2011, the undersigned issued an order denying Plaintiff's motions to compel. (ECF No. 105.) On July 18, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a subsequent motion to compel, motion to file a notice of judicial facts, and request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 111, 112, 113). On August 8, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for judicial notice. (ECF No. 114.)

Prior to being assigned to the undersigned, this action has been handled by several different Magistrate Judges. Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to review the documents filed in this action in order to clarify the claims that were found to be cognizable at screening. Upon review of the complaint and screening order issued January 30, 2009, this action is proceeding against Defendant Mendoza Powers for failing to provide hot water for two months, and Defendant Dawson for failing to provide adequate inspections and cleaning supplies in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Plaintiff moves to file a supplemental motion to compel due to the recent United States Supreme Court decision mandating the reduction of the California prison population*fn1 . The discovery Plaintiff seeks is not relevant to the claims found to be cognizable in this action., nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental motion to compel and requests for judicial notice are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.