Polk v. Pittman et al

Filing 106

ORDER Overruling Objections to Motion and Order Denying Intervenor's Motion 105 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/27/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SUSAN MAE POLK,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PITTMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00728-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO
MOTION AND ORDER DENYING
INTERVENORS’ MOTION
(ECF No. 105)

Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On January 5, 2016, the Court issued an order denying a motion by Natavia Lowery, Wayne

20

Albright, Amber Lambert, Sarah Pender, Ann Arias, and Desa Holmes (collectively, “Proposed

21

Intervenors”) to intervene in this action as plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and

22

(b). (ECF No. 103.) Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to that order, filed January 13,

23

2016. (ECF No. 105).

24

In her objections, Plaintiff asserts that she was not served by the Proposed Intervenors with

25

their motion, and thus they violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Plaintiff requests that either the

26

Proposed Intervenors or the clerk of the court be directed to provide her a copy of the motion, or that

27

the motion should be stricken from the record and the order denying the motion be amended.

28

///
1

1

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 requires service of a written motion on every

2

party, unless the motion may be heard ex parte. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 (a)(1)(D). Although

3

the Court does not condone any lack of compliance with the rules, in this case the Proposed

4

Intervenors’ motion was denied without the need to consider the lack of service of the motion on

5

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown any grounds for requiring that she be served with a copy of this now-

6

decided motion, nor has she shown any grounds for striking the motion from the record or requiring

7

the Court to amend its prior order.

8
9

For these reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to motion and order
denying intervenors’ motion are overruled.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 27, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2