Bullard v. St. Andra et al
ORDER DENYING 32 Motion for Order for Postage, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/15/18. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EFREN DANIELLE BULLARD,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER
Case No. 1:17-cv-00328-LJO-MJS (PC)
(ECF NO. 32)
R. ST. ANDRA, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Eighth
Amendment claims against CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; a conspiracy claim against
CO Jane Doe and CO Benson; and a First Amendment retaliation claim against CO
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 9, 2018 motion “Requesting Order for Postage
to Send Plaintiff’s Opposition for Summary Judgment Re Exhaustion to Defendants.”
(ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff states that he was provided sufficient postage to send his
summary judgment opposition to the Court, and indeed the Court has received the
opposition. (ECF No. 33.) However, he does not have sufficient postage to send the
opposition to the Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case.
Plaintiff is reminded that he need not copy documents and serve them on defense
counsel if they are filed with the Court. As Plaintiff has been advised (ECF No. 2), once
an attorney for a defendant appears in the action, that attorney's office will receive notice
of all filings through the Court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF). Plaintiff need not
serve documents on counsel for Defendants; the date of the electronic Notice from
ECM/ECF is the date of service. Thus, Plaintiff is only required to serve documents on
defense counsel if those documents will not be filed with the Court, i.e., discovery
Accordingly, Defendants have been served with Plaintiff’s opposition by way of
CM/ECF. Plaintiff’s motion is moot and on that basis is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 15, 2018
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?