Sullivan v. Biter et.al.

Filing 95

ORDER Requesting the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison, Corcoran, to Respond to Plaintiff's Objections and ORDER Directing Clerk to Send a Copy of this Order and Plaintiff's Objections on Deputy Attorney General Monica Ander son and the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison, Corcoran signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/25/2017. Response due within fourteen (14) days. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Objections to Findings and Recommendations). (Jessen, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN,

6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.
M. D. BITER, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11
12
13

1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG (PC)
REQUEST FOR THE LITIGATION
COORDINATOR AT CALIFORNIA
STATE PRISON, CORCORAN, TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 94)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER AND
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS ON
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
MONICA ANDERSON AND THE
LITIGATION COORDINATOR AT
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
CORCORAN

14

Michael J. Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner (prison number V-60931), and is

15

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

16

1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Corcoran.

17

On May 15, 2017, the Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that

18

this case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute

19

this action.

20

recommendations is because Plaintiff failed to appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing on

21

May 15, 2017, and otherwise failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. (Id. at 1-2).

(ECF No. 88).

The main reason the Court issued these findings and

22

On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff objected to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 94),

23

stating that he attempted to attend the Order to Show Cause hearing. (Id. at p. 2). Plaintiff

24

alleges that he “took the initiative to contact Lt. Rivera Litigation Cordinator [sic] and made

25

sure [he] was taken to a direct dial phone on May 15[,] 2017.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges

26

that on the day of the hearing, he was taken to a direct dial phone, and Correctional Officer

27

Gallegos (the Litigation Coordinator) dialed the call-in number four times, but was not

28

connected to the call. (Id.) After the fourth try, Officer Gallegos called the Clerk’s Office.
1

1

Officer Gallegos was told not to worry, and that the “conference” would be rescheduled. (Id.).

2

Given these factual allegations, the Court will request that the Litigation Coordinator at

3

California State Prison, Corcoran file a response, stating whether Plaintiff’s allegations

4

regarding why he did not participate in the Court’s telephonic conference are true.

5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court requests that, within fourteen (14) days

6

from the date of service of this order, the Litigation Coordinator at California State Prison,

7

Corcoran, file a response to Plaintiff’s allegations that he attempted to attend the hearing on

8

May 15, 2017.

9

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this

10

order and Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 94) on

11

Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica Anderson and the Litigation Coordinator at

12

California State Prison, Corcoran.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 25, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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