Shepard v. Tilton et al
Filing
90
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/19/2013 directing Clerk's Office to mail Plaintiff a copy of 43 Exhibits. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LAMONT SHEPARD,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00023-BAM PC
Plaintiff,
SECOND ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S
OFFICE TO MAIL PLAINTIFF A COPY OF
HIS EXHIBITS (ECF No. 43) SUBMITTED
WITH HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
12
R. PEREZ, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
17
Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants L.A. Martinez, R. Perez, P. Garcia, J. Soto, E. De la Cruz
18
and A Trevino for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A jury trial is set for May
19
6, 2013.
20
On February 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting copies of his summary judgment
21
motion and exhibits. (ECF No. 78.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on February 15, 2013, and
22
directed the Clerk’s office to mail Plaintiff a copy of his motion for summary judgment and his
23
corresponding exhibits filed on February 9, 2012. (ECF No. 82.) During a telephonic trial
24
confirmation hearing on March 18, 2013, Plaintiff informed the Court that he received a copy of the
25
motion for summary judgment, but did not receive copies of his exhibits.
26
27
28
1
1
Upon review of the docket, it appears that Plaintiff was not sent a copy of his exhibits.
2
Accordingly, the Clerk’s office is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of his exhibits, identified as
3
CM/ECF No. 43, which were filed on February 9, 2012.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
March 19, 2013
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
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?