Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 82

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Court Order Regarding Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/18/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COURT ORDER
REGARDING SERVICE
(Document 73)

Plaintiff Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is currently in the
discovery phase.
On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a Court order directing the Facility C Law

22
Librarian to allow (1) Plaintiff to make more than three copies of a document filed with the Court; and
23
(2) Plaintiff to make copies for private counsel. Plaintiff states that since there are three different
24
25
26
27
28

attorneys representing Defendants in this action (the Attorney General and two private firms), he
needs numerous copies to comply with service requirements.
Such an order is unnecessary, however. In the Court’s February 22, 2012, First Informational
Order, the Court explained that Plaintiff is not required to send the Court copies of documents.
1

1
2
3

Plaintiff is also not required to serve the Attorney General, as counsel will receive service via the
Court’s electronic filing system (“CM/ECF”).
As for private counsel, while the 2012 order does require Plaintiff to serve parties who are not

4
represented by the Attorney General, the Court will relieve Plaintiff of this requirement. The current
5
version of the First Information Order specifically states that a pro se plaintiff need not serve
6
7
8
9
10
11

documents on counsel for defendant (though a proof of service is required for purposes of the mailbox
rule), and that notice of filings will be made through CM/ECF.
Accordingly, for future filings in this action, the notification of filing from CM/ECF will
constitute service and all dates will be calculated from the notification of filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 18, 2014

L. Beck

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