Purtue v. Kearnes et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 52 Motion regarding Officials misconduct signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/21/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL PURTUE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
B. KEARNES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00551-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REGARDING OFFICIALS MISCONDUCT
[ECF No. 52]

Plaintiff Michael Purtue is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion regarding alleged prison officials misconduct.

20

Plaintiff contends that “there is an inmate lying to the court about being Plaintiff[’s] representation

21

[sic].” Plaintiff contends that Warden K. Holland and her captains have paid an inmate to pretend to

22

be acting as Plaintiff’s legal representative in order to obtain documents to his civil rights action and to

23

sabotage his civil rights complaint in order to get out of the lawsuit. Plaintiff contends that he never

24

received a courtesy copy of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff requests a copy

25

of the entire court file. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

26

First, Plaintiff’s claim that he never received a courtesy copy of Defendants’ motion for

27

summary judgment as ordered by the Court on January 24, 2017, Plaintiff’s claim is belied by the fact

28

that Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion on February 17, 2017, and makes specific
1

1

reference and argument as to the contents of such motion. (See ECF No. 51.) Second, the Court has

2

only received and filed documents submitted by Plaintiff, and the Court has only directed service of

3

orders by mail on Plaintiff at his address of record. Third, the Court will not send Plaintiff a copy of

4

the entire case file as it is clear that Plaintiff is receiving any and all filings in this case. Accordingly,

5

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

9

February 21, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2