Shehee v. Nguyen et al

Filing 83

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 81 Motion for Copy of Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/30/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

NGUYEN, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01154-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR COPY OF SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 81)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case proceeds on Plaintiff’s third

19

amended complaint against Defendants Audrey Long, April Leavens, Long Moua, and

20

Kim Nguyen for denying Plaintiff a cane and access to educational services in violation

21

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Eighth Amendment of the United

22

States Constitution. (ECF No. 34.)

23

The complained of acts occurred at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga,

24

California. Plaintiff currently is detained in the Fresno County Jail. On March 15, 2017,

25

Plaintiff filed a notice that various officials had confiscated Plaintiff’s legal documents in

26

retaliation for the filing of his lawsuit. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff did not specify who the

27

officials were, but none were named Defendants in this lawsuit. The Court construed the

28

notice as a motion for injunctive relief, to wit, the return of his legal documents, but
1

1

denied it because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the individuals responsible and the

2

requested relief was not of the same character as that in his complaint. (ECF No. 68.)

3

On October 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for court order for his legal records

4

stolen by the Sheriff’s department. (ECF No. 79.) This was interpreted as motion for

5

reconsideration of the Order at ECF No. 68 and denied. (ECF No. 80.)

6

On November 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “motion for scheduling order to prosecute

7

case timely.” (ECF No. 81.) He again alludes to the purportedly-stolen records, but also

8

requests a copy of the trial scheduling order. (Id.).

9

As interpreted as a motion for another copy of the Scheduling Order in this case,

10

the motion IS HEREBY GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy

11

of the trial scheduling order (ECF No. 57) along with this Order.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 30, 2017

/s/

15

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Michael J. Seng

2