Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 82

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 76 Motion for Status Conference; ORDER RESPONDING to Plaintiff's Request Regarding Unserved Doe Defendants signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/4/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS BRANCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE (Doc. 76.) vs. N. GRANNIS, et al., 15 ORDER RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST REGARDING UNSERVED DOE DEFENDANTS Defendants. / 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Louis Branch (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 19 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 7, 20 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on 21 August 25, 2010, against defendant D. Umphenour and two Doe defendants for failure to protect in 22 violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation 23 of the First Amendment.1 (Doc. 26.) 24 25 On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to schedule a status conference in this action. (Doc. 76.) 26 27 28 1 On May 11, 2011, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.) The Doe defendants have not been sufficiently identified by Plaintiff to enable service of process by the U.S. Marshal. 1 1 II. MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE 2 Plaintiff requests a status conference in this action to address: (1) service of process on 3 parties not yet served, (2) disposition of pending motions, (3) relief from discovery limits, including 4 deferral of discovery, and (4) any other applicable matters. 5 Discussion 6 Plaintiff is advised that under Local Rule 230(l), motions in prisoner cases are submitted on 7 the record without oral argument, with few exceptions. L. R. 230(l). Such motions are not noticed 8 on the Court’s motion calendar. 9 In separate orders, the Court has resolved Plaintiff’s pending request for entry of default, filed 10 on October 26, 2012; motion for appointment of counsel, filed on December 21, 2012; and motion 11 for extension of time to respond to discovery requests, filed on December 21, 2012. (Docs. 71, 75, 12 77.) Plaintiff’s only other pending motion in this action is the present motion for a status conference. 13 Therefore, upon entry of this order, Plaintiff’s pending motions shall be resolved without need for 14 a status conference. 15 In exceptional circumstances, the Court may conduct in-court proceedings to resolve a 16 motion in a prisoner case such as Plaintiff’s. However, in this instance, the Court does not find 17 exceptional circumstances or good cause to schedule a status conference. Plaintiff’s pending 18 motions have been resolved, and Plaintiff’s request regarding unserved defendants shall be addressed 19 by this order. For any other applicable matters, Plaintiff should file a written motion with the Court. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a status conference shall be denied. 21 III. REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING DOE DEFENDANTS 22 Plaintiff requests the Court’s assistance in identifying his Doe Defendants to enable service 23 of process. Plaintiff asserts that he has made diligent efforts to identify Does 1 and 2, without 24 success. Plaintiff asserts that he filed a habeas petition in the Monterey Superior Court to compel 25 officials to divulge the Incident Report concerning events at issue in this action, and he formally 26 requested the complete Incident Report from defendant Umphenour. Plaintiff claims that defendant 27 Umphenour “disingenuously provide[d] an incomplete Incident Report omitting the names of Doe 28 1 & 2.” (Motion, Doc. 76 at 2:23-24.) 2 1 Plaintiff is advised that the discovery process is available to him for questioning the 2 defendants about facts relevant to his allegations and claims. Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal 3 Rules of Civil Procedure govern the discovery process, which includes, inter alia, interrogatories, 4 requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, depositions, and motions to compel. 5 Plaintiff should refer to these rules which are available at the prison law library. Plaintiff is 6 cautioned that discovery must be conducted within the deadlines established in the 7 Discovery/Scheduling Order entered on October 30, 2012 in this action. 8 IV. 9 10 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 11 12 Plaintiff’s motion for a status conference, filed on December 21, 2012, is DENIED; and 2. 13 Plaintiff’s request for assistance in identifying Doe Defendants is RESOLVED by this order. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij January 4, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?