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.

Jesse Washington v. J.W. andrews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 30, 2012

JESSE WASHINGTON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J.W. ANDREWS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF NO. 101)

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed June 21, 2007 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

This case is proceeding on Plaintiff's claim that Defendants destroyed his personal property, were indifferent to his medical needs, denied him access to court and retaliated against him.

The Court has filed scheduling orders under which the deadlines for amending pleadings, conducting discovery and filing dispositive motions have all passed. (Order Sched., ECF No. 27; Order Modif., ECF No. 42; Order Modif., ECF No. 55.) Trial confirmation hearing is set for January 14, 2013; trial is set for February 26, 2013. (Second Sched. Order, ECF No. 88.)

This case had been selected for the Court's prisoner alternative dispute resolution program and a settlement conference set for April 5, 2012. (Order Settlement Conf., ECF No. 92.) The Court subsequently vacated the April 5, 2012 settlement conference. (Minute Order Vacating., ECF No. 99.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's letter directed to the California Attorney General's Office, filed with the Court on March 30, 2012, seeking assistance gaining access to stored legal documents pertaining to his (now vacated) April 5, 2012 settlement conference. (Mot. Inj., ECF No. 101.) Plaintiff requests that the warden at Corcoran State Prison be instructed to rectify the denial of access to documents prior to the April 5th settlement conference. (Id.) The Court construes this as a motion for injunctive relief.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230, the time in which Defendants could have filed opposition papers has passed without Defendants having done so. Plaintiff's Motion is now before the Court.

Inasmuch as the previously scheduled settlement conference has been vacated and the date on which it was to occur has passed, the instant motion is moot and shall be denied on that ground.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief be DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120430

© 1992-2012 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.