Venable v. Patel

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING In Part Plaintiff's 51 Motion Requesting Documents and Correcting Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/2/2021. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELVIS VENABLE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
PATEL,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01519-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS
AND CORRECTING CLAIMS
(ECF No. 51)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff Elvis Venable (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Patel for nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages

20

resulting from Defendant Patel’s alleged violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. All

21

parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 44.) Pursuant to the Court’s

22

second scheduling order issued on May 18, 2021, trial is currently set to begin on February 14,

23

2022. (ECF No. 50.)

24

A telephonic status conference was held on May 18, 2021 to discuss setting deadlines and

25

the trial date in this action. (ECF No. 49.) At the conference, Plaintiff stated that he had

26

requested the return of certain original documents filed with the Court. The Court instructed

27

Plaintiff to submit a written motion after the status conference that specified which documents he

28

needed, why he needed them, and why he did not have his own copies.
1

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Some of the Petition Filed.

1
2

The Original 602,” filed May 28, 2021. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff1 states that he is filing his

3

motion to request the original 602 filed in this case, and also requesting that the defense correct

4

the penal code that this case is filed under, “to 2254(3)(c) and some other penal code?!?” (Id.)

5

Although Defendant Patel has not yet had an opportunity to respond, the Court finds a response

6

unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
As stated in the Court’s First Informational Order on November 14, 2017, the Clerk of the

7
8

Court scans paper documents into the electronic court file and then discards the paper copy, and

9

parties are instructed to never send original exhibits to the Court. (ECF No. 3, p. 2.) As such, the

10

Court cannot send Plaintiff original versions of any documents filed with the Court during the

11

pendency of this case.

12

Furthermore, Plaintiff is reminded that the Court does not provide free copies of case

13

documents to parties, even when a party is proceeding in forma pauperis. Ordinarily, the Clerk of

14

Court charges $0.50 per page for copies of documents. However, based on Plaintiff’s

15

representations during the telephonic status conference that his legal work was discarded by

16

correctional officers, the Court will make a one-time exception in this instance. As it appears that

17

Plaintiff attached the 602 related to this action to the original complaint, the Court will direct the

18

Clerk’s Office to provide a copy of the original complaint and all attachments at no charge. In the

19

future, if Plaintiff requires copies of other documents filed in this case, he should be more specific

20

and also explain why he needs those documents and why he does not already have copies of

21

them.
Plaintiff’s request that the defense correct the penal code that his case is filed under is

22
23

denied. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint and the Court screened the complaint

24

for any cognizable claims. The case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

25

against Defendant Patel, and there are no penal codes or state law claims at issue. As it is not

26

clear what correction Plaintiff is requesting, the Court will deny the request.

27
28

Although the motion states that it is filed by “Defendant,” the Court assumes that Plaintiff is
referring to himself.
2
1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting copies of documents and correcting claims, (ECF No.

3

51), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as discussed above; and

4

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to mail one (1) copy of the original complaint, filed

5

November 14, 2017, (ECF No. 1), to Plaintiff at his current mailing address.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 2, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3