McMaster v. Spearman et al

Filing 60

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to File Letter and Send Plaintiff Copy of Docket, and Addressing Letter signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/29/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DANA MCMASTER,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO FILE LETTER AND SEND PLAINTIFF
COPY OF DOCKET, AND ADDRESSING
LETTER

M. E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:10-cv-01407-AWI-SKO PC

Defendants.

15

_____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff Dana McMaster, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 6, 2010. On October 28, 2013, the
19 Clerk of the Court received a letter from Plaintiff. Based on its contents, the Court elects to file
20 the letter and it is addressed as follows.
21

The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff of the docket. However, Plaintiff is not entitled

22 to a free copy of the Local Rules. If the prison’s law library lacks a copy, the librarian may call to
23 obtain a copy for use by all litigants. The current version of the Local Rules was effective October
24 1, 2013.
25

With respect to Plaintiff’s substantive discovery motions, Plaintiff may be aware that the

26 Eastern District of California carries one of the heaviest caseloads in the country and suffers from
27 a shortage of judges. If not, he is now so informed. Plaintiff has not been precluded from filing
28

1 motions, as he asserts. However, as with every other litigant, he is required to await rulings on his
2 substantive motions, which will occur in due course.1
Plaintiff’s assertion regarding expedited handling of Defendants’ motions is without merit.

3

4 Defendants have sought extensions of time to serve discovery responses, which have been granted.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Plaintiff has not sought similar extensions of time. Had he done so, his
6 motions, too, would have been granted. Substantive motions such as those filed by Plaintiff are
7 not resolved in the same manner as motions for extensions of time of the type filed by Defendants.
8 Plaintiff may be assured that the Court is aware of his pending discovery motions, which will be
9 resolved in due course.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12

October 29, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s most recent motion to compel is not yet ready consideration. Local Rule 230(l).

2