Valson v. Kelso et al

Filing 33

ORDER on Plaintiff's Request for Order Directing Plaintiff's Institution of Confinement to Allow Plaintiff to Make Copies of Scheduling Conference Statement 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/6/2018: Request is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 Case No. 1:14-cv-01420-DAD-EPG (PC) SILUS M. VALSON, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF’S INSTITUTION OF CONFINEMENT TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO MAKE COPIES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STATEMENT Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE and MARTIN BITER, Defendants. (ECF NO. 31) 14 15 16 17 Silus Valson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for an order directing his institution of 19 confinement to allow him to make copies of his scheduling conference statement (“the 20 Request”). Plaintiff states that “Senior Law Librarian Ms. . . . Lirone’s denial was based on the 21 document contained published documentation from MedlinePlus of the National Institute of 22 Health/U.S. National Library of Medicine.” (ECF No. 31, at p. 2) 23 As discussed on the record at the hearing on March 5, 2018, the documents that Plaintiff 24 describes are not needed for his scheduling conference statement. The Court did not require 25 Plaintiff to submit any evidence for the scheduling conference. 26 Plaintiff’s request for an order related to the scheduling conference statement. Thus, the Court denies 27 However, the Court notes that Plaintiff should be allowed to make copies of documents 28 that he is using to support his case, including documents Plaintiff identified in the Request (the 1 1 documents from the National Institutes of Health/U.S. National Library of Medicine that 2 Plaintiff obtained from his Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Health 3 and Human Services), because Plaintiff has an obligation to provide documents that he may use 4 to support his claims in this case to Defendants. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 & 34. 5 6 Thus, Plaintiff’s institution should allow him to make copies of documents necessary for his case. He has a legal obligation to share those documents with Defendants. 7 If Plaintiff’s institution of confinement does not allow Plaintiff to make copies of 8 documents that are necessary for use in this case, Plaintiff may file a motion with the Court, 9 and the Court may issue an order requiring Plaintiff’s institution of confinement to allow 10 11 12 Plaintiff to make copies. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Request is DENIED without prejudice. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?