Thomas v. Wilber et al

Filing 121

ORDER STRIKING Duplicative 115 118 Motions; ORDER DISREGARDING Late 117 Reply signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/25/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:10-cv-00006-SKO (PC)
ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE
MOTIONS

v.
(Docs. 115 and 118)

13

M. WILBER, et al.,
ORDER DISREGARDING LATE REPLY
Defendants.

14

(Doc. 117)
15
_____________________________________/
16
17

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

18 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2010. This matter is
19 currently set for jury trial on May 5, 2015, and the case has been referred to the Eastern District of
20 California’s Pro Bono Program for appointment of voluntary counsel to represent Plaintiff. (Docs.
21 97, 114.)
22

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel and to subpoena witnesses and

23 documents, (2) a reply brief, and (3) a motion for reconsideration and to compel production of
24 documents. (Docs. 115, 117, 118.)
25

Plaintiff’s two motions are duplicative of previous filings which were considered and

26 decided by the Court. (Docs. 102, 108, 112, 113.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s two duplicative
27 motions are HEREBY ORDERED STRICKEN from the record.
28

1

Plaintiff’s reply brief is long overdue and his motion to which it relates was denied on

2 August 4, 2014. (Docs. 102, 107, 112.) The Court nevertheless reviewed the reply brief, see
3 Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009), but earlier receipt of the reply would not
4 have altered the ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s reply brief is
5 deemed considered but DISREGARDED.
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 25, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2