Meador v. Aye et al

Filing 140

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 132 Motion Requesting an Order Issue to Defense Counsel to Contact her Extended Client to Release Plaintiff's Property signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/20/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

GORDON DALE MEADOR,

11
v.

12
13

K. AYE, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:14-cv-00006-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REQUESTING AN ORDER ISSUE TO
DEFENSE COUNSEL TO CONTACT HER
EXTENDED CLIENT TO RELEASE
PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY
(ECF NO. 132)
Defendants.

15
16

Gordon Meador ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim

18

for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to medical care against Defendants Garza, Sellers, 1 Aye,

19

Moon, Nguyen, Clark, Kim, and Gill. (ECF Nos. 30, 36, 37, & 38).2

20

On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an order issue to defense counsel to

21

contact her extended client to release Plaintiff’s property (“the Motion”).

22

Plaintiff states that he has tried to get Mr. Lamar Grant (the property officer) to send Plaintiff his

23

personal property. Plaintiff states that Mr. Grant has a problem sending Plaintiff his personal

24

property. Plaintiff states that there is a specific reason relative to this case that Plaintiff needs his

25

property. Plaintiff requests that “the court request Ms. Woodbridge contact Mr. Grant and have

(ECF No. 132).

26
27
28

1
2

Defendants refer to “Sellers” as “Selliers.”
Defendant Smith was dismissed from the case on July 21, 2016, via a stipulation
(ECF Nos. 77 & 81).
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

[Plaintiff’s] property sent to him.”
Plaintiff’s request will be denied. It does not appear that Plaintiff’s request has anything
to do with this case. Plaintiff does state that “[t]here is a specific reason relative to this case that
Plaintiff needs his property,” but he does not provide that reason. Moreover, it is highly unlikely
that Plaintiff needs all of his personal property in order to litigate this case. Instead, it appears
that Plaintiff wants his personal property delivered to him, and he is attempting to use this
unrelated case to make it happen.
The Court notes that if Plaintiff believes that his rights are being violated in regards to
Plaintiff not receiving his personal property, he can file a separate case.
If Plaintiff is denied his legal property related to this case, or evidence he needs related to
this case, Plaintiff may file a motion explaining the relation to this case.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:

June 20, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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