Lazor v. Castellands, et al.

Filing 22

ORDER Re: Responsive Pleading To Court Order Of 11-15-13, ORDER Directing Return Of Original Papers (ECF No. 16 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/13/2014. (Enclosed: Exhibits submitted on November 14, 2013.) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREE LAZOR,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

E. CASTELLANDS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00801-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER RE: RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO
COURT ORDER OF 11-15-13
ORDER DIRECTING RETURN OF ORIGINAL
PAPERS
(ECF No. 16)

18

Plaintiff Free Lazor (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, proceeded pro se in this civil rights action

19

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that

20

this Court return papers that Plaintiff mistakenly filed with his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

21

findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 12.) On November 18, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

22

request, making an exception to the usual practice of charging for copies, and directed the Clerk’s

23

Office to mail Plaintiff a copy of the exhibits and papers attached to his objections. (ECF No. 13.)

24

The Court’s order and a copy of the documents were served on Plaintiff by mail that same day.

25

On November 22, 2013, the Court dismissed and closed this action. Thereafter, on December

26

11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant document complaining about the quality of the copies provided by

27

the Clerk’s office and requesting the return of his original papers. Plaintiff submitted sample copies

28

that he received, which he claims are worthless. (ECF No. 16.)
1

1

In this instance, the Court promptly responded to Plaintiff’s original request and directed the

2

Clerk of the Court provide Plaintiff with the relevant copies. Despite Plaintiff’s current complaint, the

3

Clerk of the Court complied with the Court’s directive. The sample pages submitted by Plaintiff are of

4

virtually the same quality as those scanned into the Court’s electronic court file. As Plaintiff was

5

informed at the outset of this litigation, paper documents submitted by a pro se litigant are scanned

6

into the electronic court file by the Clerk’s office. After being scanned into the electronic file, the

7

paper documents are retained for a limited period of time and then discarded. Local Rule 138(d). For

8

that reason, Plaintiff was cautioned not to send originals to the court. (ECF No. 3, p. 4.)

9

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s instant request for return of his papers is GRANTED. The Clerk of the

10

Court is directed to return Plaintiff’s original exhibits and papers attached to his objections, which he

11

filed on November 14, 2013.

12

Plaintiff is informed that the Court will not issue any further orders in this closed action

13

regarding documents sent to the Court. Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that neither the Court nor the

14

Clerk’s Office shall accept responsibility for any loss, damage, or destruction of the original papers

15

that are returned by mail at Plaintiff’s request. This includes any purported failure of Plaintiff to

16

receive such papers.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 13, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2