Bradford v. Marchak
Filing
295
ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Motions to Strike 288 , 289 , 292 , 293 and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 291 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/17/2018: Motions are DENIED. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
M. MARCHAK, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO STRIKE (ECF Nos. 288, 289, 292, 293) AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No.
291)
Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s second
20
amended complaint against Defendants Marchak, Grewal, Depovic, and Clausell for the unnecessary
21
and wanton infliction of pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 21.)
22
In the Court’s orders issued on April 2, 2018 (ECF No. 266) and April 16, 2018 (ECF No.
23
287), Plaintiff was informed that future repetitive, misnamed, overlapping, and otherwise harassing
24
filings would be summarily denied.
25
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s four motions to strike are denied. (ECF Nos. 288, 289, 292, 293). The
26
fact that Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants’ arguments or defenses is not sufficient grounds to strike
27
their filings. The Court will not further entertain such motions to strike, and any future such motion
28
will be summarily denied.
1
1
Further, Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions against Defendant Marchak (ECF No.
2
291) is repetitive and duplicative of his previous motions addressed by the Court’s April 16, 2018
3
order, and is denied.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
April 17, 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
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?