Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.
Filing
104
ORDER for Defendant to SHOW CAUSE Why ECF No. 100 Should Not be Stricken, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/30/17. Two Day Deadline. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DIJON KINNEY,
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY ECF NO. 100 SHOULD NOT
BE STRICKEN
P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against
19
Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care
20
and cruel and unusual punishment.
21
On January 26, 2017, Defendant docketed two documents titled, “Request for
22
Additional Redactions of Confidential Material.” (ECF Nos. 100, 101.) Despite the title,
23
the first of these documents actually reads, “Request for Extension of Time to Disclosure
24
[sic] Confidential and Privileged Materials.” (ECF No. 100.) It appears to be a duplicate
25
of the request for extension of time filed January 27, 2017. (ECF No. 103.)
26
Document No. 100 appears to have been erroneously filed. Accordingly, within
27
two days of the date of this order, Defendant shall either withdraw the request at
28
1
Document No. 100, or shall show cause why the apparently erroneous request should
2
not be stricken.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 30, 2017
/s/
6
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?