Gradford v. McDougall et al

Filing 9

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE 8 AND ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND DOCKET SHEET TO PLAINTIFF signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/8/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, Plaintiff, 10 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE (ECF No. 8.) v. 11 12 1:17-cv-00201-DAD-GSA-PC MCDOUGALL, et al., ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND DOCKET SHEET TO PLAINTIFF Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 William J. Gradford (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this case on February 13, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center in Modesto, California (“SCPSC”). On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice with the court, addressing the following. I. PLAINTIFF’S MAIL 24 Plaintiff notified the court that mail was stolen at SCPSC in May 2017. Plaintiff 25 requests the court to re-serve any documents mailed to him by the court during that time. 26 According to the court’s record, the court did not send Plaintiff any documents in May 2017. 27 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for re-service of documents is moot. The Clerk shall be directed 28 to send Plaintiff a docket sheet for this case, for his records. 1 1 II. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 2 Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to exhaust his remedies at SCPFC but was told by the 3 Facility Commander not to file a grievance. Thus, Plaintiff has provided evidence that he 4 attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies at the Jail but was prevented from doing so. 5 Exhaustion of remedies for this case is not presently at issue in this case, and therefore this 6 evidence shall be disregarded. Plaintiff should re-submit his evidence of exhaustion at a later 7 stage of the proceedings if exhaustion of remedies becomes an issue, such as if Defendants file 8 a motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust. 9 III. Plaintiff reports that SCPSF has not been deducting funds from his account for payment 10 11 FILING FEE PAYMENTS of the filing fee for this case, as ordered by the court. 12 The court’s order directing officials at SCPSF to send payments to the court for 13 Plaintiff’s filing fee was issued on March 17, 2017. (ECF No. 10.) It is early in the process to 14 determine whether the required payments are not being made. The court’s order requires 15 payments only once a month, and only if Plaintiff’s account contains more than $10.00. If 16 Plaintiff has further concerns, he should inquire at SCPSF whether the required payments are 17 18 19 20 being made. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. and 21 22 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet for this case. 23 24 This order resolves the issues raised in Plaintiff’s notice filed on May 22, 2017; IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: June 8, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?