Woodall v. State of California et al
Filing
95
ORDER DENYING 75 Motion for Communication with Inmate Witness as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/21/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
NICK WOODALL,
9
10
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01948-OWW-DLB PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COMMUNICATION WITH INMATE
WITNESS AS MOOT (DOC. 75)
v.
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15
Plaintiff Nick Woodall (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
16
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
18
on Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants T. Gonzalez, T. Lawson, A. Olive, A. Raygoza, and
19
M. Sexton for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On August 31,
20
2010, Plaintiff moved for an order permitting communication between Plaintiff and inmate
21
Inglett, Plaintiff’s former cell mate who may have relevant information regarding this action.
22
Plaintiff requested communication with inmate Inglett in order for him to provide a declaration
23
about the events at issue. On December 13, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion as moot,
24
finding that Plaintiff had been approved to communicate with inmate Inglett via institutional
25
procedures. A court order was unnecessary.
26
On January 19, 2011, Plaintiff moved for the Court to vacate its previous order. Doc. 75.
27
Plaintiff contends that though he was approved to communicate with inmate Inglett, inmate
28
Inglett was not approved to communicate with Plaintiff.
1
1
A review of the court record indicates that Plaintiff was able to obtain a declaration from
2
inmate Inglett concerning the events in this action. See Pl.’s Mem. Support Mot. Summ. J., Ex.
3
III, Doc. 68. Plaintiff filed this declaration as an exhibit in support of Plaintiff’s motion on
4
December 7, 2010. Plaintiff provides no other reason which requires communication with
5
inmate Inglett at this time. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff’s motion is moot.
6
7
8
9
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a court order to
communicate with inmate Inglett, filed January 19, 2011, is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 21, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?