Stewart v. Holland et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING 59 Motion to Submit Administrative 602 Exhaustion to Defendants and to Court as a Exhibit, verifying exhaustion; ORDER regarding Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/16/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 TRACY STEWART, 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. K. HOLLAND, et al., Case No.: 1:14-cv-00322-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBMIT ADMINISTRATIVE 602 EXHAUSTION TO DEFENDANTS AND TO COURT AS EXHIBIT, VERIFYING EXHAUSTION 18 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 19 (ECF No. 59) 17 Defendants. 20 21 22 Plaintiff Tracy Stewart is a state prisoner who is currently proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 I. Exhibit 24 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to submit administrative 602 exhaustion to 25 Defendants and Court as exhibit, verifying exhaustion of all claims, filed on April 9, 2018. (ECF 26 No. 59.) Plaintiff submits documents that he asserts shows that he fully exhausted his 27 administrative remedies with regards to his claims in this case, contrary to Defendants’ recent 28 verbal contentions that he did not. 1 1 On the same day that the Clerk of the Court received and docketed Plaintiff’s filing, 2 Defendants Nixon and Carey filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 56 for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 60.) As 4 discussed in the Rand warning provided to Plaintiff with that motion, (ECF No. 60-2), Plaintiff 5 may file an opposition to the motion and include specific facts in declarations, depositions, 6 answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents in support. The opposition is due within 7 twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of the motion. Local Rule 230(l). 8 9 Considering Plaintiff’s pro se status, and because his exhibits were submitted with a dated and signed declaration, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to accept his exhibit and not 10 require that he re-file the documents. Plaintiff may reference the documents he has submitted in 11 his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, if he chooses. Plaintiff may also inform 12 the Court in writing that he does not wish to submit any other opposition or additional 13 submission, and will stand upon his April 9, 2018 filing alone to oppose Defendants’ motion, if 14 he chooses. Any further submission in opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion by 15 Plaintiff must be submitted as a single filing, including any exhibits, by the deadline noted above. Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents 16 II. 17 Plaintiff also submitted his First Set of Requests for Production of Documents with his 18 19 filing discussed above, which is directed at Defendants. As discussed in this Court’s first informational order in this case, issued on March 11, 20 2014, discovery requests must be served directly on the attorney for the party from whom 21 discovery is sought, and generally should not be filed with the Court. (ECF No. 3 ¶¶ V.C, D.) 22 Normally, the Clerk of the Court will return discovery sent to the Court for filing as improper, or 23 the Court will strike discovery wrongfully filed in an action. However, in the interests of justice 24 and as a one-time exception, the Court will instead consider this set of requests for productions as 25 served on Defendants as of the date it was filed. Defendants shall respond to the discovery 26 requests as provided in the Court’s discovery and scheduling order issued on October 4, 2017 27 (ECF No. 38), as amended, (ECF No. 54). In the future, discovery requests and responses should 28 not be filed with the Court. The parties should carefully read and obey all court orders. 2 1 III. 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to submit administrative Conclusion 3 602 exhaustion to Defendants and Court as exhibit, verifying exhaustion of all claims, filed on 4 April 9, 2018 (ECF No. 59) is granted. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 16, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?