Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical

Filing 53

ORDER RE: Clarification on Administrative Exhaustion, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 05/03/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON BULLOCK,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER RE: CLARIFICATION ON
ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

vs.
(ECF No. 52)

14

BROCK SHEELA, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Gordon Bullock is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action
17
alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 10, 2017, the Court held a telephonic
18
scheduling conference and issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 51.) On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff
19
submitted a letter to the Court requesting clarification on the topic of administrative exhaustion.
20
In particular, Plaintiff asks whether he may pre-emptively file the documents he possesses
21
regarding the issue of administrative exhaustion. He also objects to a notice of deposition and
22
document requests that Defendant has served on him on the grounds that he has no access to a
23
24

law library. Finally, he reiterates his previous requests to compel his institution’s law library to
provide him access and copy services.1

25

As an initial matter, Plaintiff need not file any response to Defendants’ Motion for

26
Summary Judgment on the issue of administrative exhaustion until Defendants have actually
27
28

1

This is the third such request by Plaintiff; the two previous requests were denied. (ECF Nos. 43, 46.)

1

1

filed that motion. When they file a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff will have an

2

opportunity to respond with any arguments and evidence. The motion will set forth the law and

3

Defendants’ arguments.

4

In addition, and as explained at the scheduling conference, Plaintiff should preserve any

5

objections he has to Defendants’ discovery requests until the discovery status conference that

6

has been scheduled in this case.

7
8

Finally, for the reasons set forth in its orders denying Plaintiff’s previous requests
regarding his institution’s law library, his third request is DENIED.

9

Plaintiff is also reminded that under Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any

10

request for a court order must come in the form of a motion. The Court will not address further

11

requests for relief that are submitted in letter form.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 3, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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