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