IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2012
WILLIAM SYLVESTER, PLAINTIFF,
ED ALAMEIDO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a prisoner at California State Prison-Sacramento ("CSP-SAC"). On April 11, 2012, the CSP-SAC Warden, Tim V. Virga, informed this court, and CSP-SAC prisoners and staff, that several pieces of prisoner mail, dating from 2009 to January 2012, had been metered by CSP-SAC but never mailed. On April 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiff's discovery motion wherein he included a photocopy of the outside of an envelope prepared by plaintiff and addressed to the California "Government Claims Program." (See Dkt. No. 38 at 9.) The metering stamp is illegible, but a handwritten notation indicates that it reads "June 17, 2010," and plaintiff so avers. (Id.) The next exhibit is a copy of the Warden's April 11, 2012 letter, which reads in pertinent part, "It recently came to my attention that the enclosed letter had not yet been delivered to the intended recipient. Upon learning of this, I ensured the letter was promptly delivered." (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff has also submitted copies of these documents in a "supplement" to his statement of disputed facts filed in opposition to defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 44 at 4, 5.) The matter allegedly contained in this envelope was plaintiff's claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board ("VCGCB"), concerning the medical claims pending in the instant action, as alleged in plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1 at 9, ¶ 37). Because the merits of plaintiff's state tort claims currently pending before the court may turn on VCGCB's response thereto, the court seeks, by this order, to notify VCGCB of the aforenoted delay and request, if possible, expedited consideration of plaintiff's claim.
Accordingly, plaintiff, with the assistance of CSP-SAC staff, is requested to forward a copy of this order to the VCGCB, together with a copy of plaintiff's supplemental statement of disputed facts (Dkt. No. 44), within seven days after service of this order.
In addition, it appears that the mail delays at CSP-SAC delayed plaintiff's receipt of defendants' discovery responses. While defendants assert that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 35) is moot (Dkt. No. 36), plaintiff now asserts that defendants' responses are incomplete and evasive (Dkt. No. 38). Nevertheless, plaintiff suggests that, because he included his discovery argument in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, it will be more efficient for the court to address his contentions in the process of ruling on the motion; thus, plaintiff "stipulat[es] that all discovery contentions will be addressed in resolution of defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's opposition thereto." (Dkt. No. 38 at 3.) The court cannot, as plaintiff requests, issue an order approving such "stipulation." However, the court will assess the quality and weight of the evidence, including all responses to discovery, when it addresses the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's discovery motion (Dkt. No. 35), must therefore be denied without prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff, with the assistance of CSP-SAC staff, is requested to forward a copy of this order to the VCGCB, together with a copy of plaintiff's supplemental statement of disputed facts (Dkt. No. 44), within seven days after service of this order on plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 35), is denied without prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff, with service of this order:
(1) a second copy of this order; (2) a copy of plaintiff's supplemental statement of facts (Dkt. No. 44); and (3) a copy of the docket.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.