Tilei v. Wan et al

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING 78 Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Ruling on Letters to Clerk's Office, Attached as Exhibit C; and ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Provide Plaintiff With a Copy of the Docket Following the Docketing of This Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/20/2010. (Jessen, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request, in letter form, seeking the issuance of an order ruling on his motions, attached as Exhibit C. (Doc. 78, court record p. 4.) Exhibit C consists of two letters to the Clerk of the Court, dated November 15, 2009, and November 26, 2009, by Plaintiff. Letters to the Clerk of the Court are not motions, and do not and will not receive orders in response. Further, as Plaintiff was properly notified by the Clerk's Office, the Clerk is unable to respond to individual inquiries on case status. Although Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking a case status, his inquires in fact constitute a request for case specific information and are considered status inquiries. The Clerk's Office is unable to respond to such inquiries. If Plaintiff wishes to seek relief via an order on a matter relating to this case, he must file a motion with the court. Letters to the Clerk of the Court are not motions, as previously stated, and will not receive court rulings. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for a ruling on his letters to the Clerk's Office, attached as Exhibit C, is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED. 1 v. T. WAN, et al., (Doc. 78) Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A COPY OF THE DOCKET FOLLOWING THE DOCKETING OF THIS ORDER PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00776-OWW-GSA PC ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF RULING ON LETTERS TO CLERK'S OFFICE, ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In light of the Plaintiff's concern regarding his reply dated October 22, 2009, Plaintiff is informed that his reply to Defendants' opposition to his motion to compel responses to his interrogatories, and his reply to Defendants' opposition to his motion to compel responses to his request for the production of documents have been received and filed.1 (Docs. 67, 75.) Therefore, Plaintiff's four motions to compel have been deemed submitted, and are currently being reviewed on their merits by the undersigned. A ruling will be issued in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

January 20, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court regarding his reply to Defendants' o p p o s itio n to his motions to compel responses to his interrogatories. The letter was accompanied by a copy of the r e p ly , dated October 22, 2009. Upon inquiry from the Clerk's Office, the Court directed that the reply be filed in, r e fle c te d in docket entry 75. The Court also directed that the letter be filed in simply for the purpose of clarifying th e circumstances under which the reply was received and filed on December 3, 2009. (Doc. 74.) It is not clear why th e reply was not received along with Plaintiff's other reply date October 22, 2009. (Doc. 67). The Court accepts P la in tiff's representation that it was mailed on October 22, 2009, and the reply will be considered when the Court is s u e s its ruling on Plaintiff's motions to compel. The Court will not further address this issue.

1

2