Brock v. Tuolumne County Sheriffs

Filing 30

ORDER discharging Order to Show Cause; granting Plaintiff's Request for Instruction; and denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Amend 25 , 26 , 29 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/25/2019. Third Amended Complaint due within 30-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

DAVID LEE BROCK,

12
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01610-LJO JLT (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE;
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTION; AND

v.
TUOLUMNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
(Docs. 25, 26, 29)

18
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

19
20

On January 9, 2019, the Court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found it

21

to state cognizable claims against Does 1, 2, and 3, deputies of the Tuolumne County Sheriff’s

22

Office (“TCSO”) who booked plaintiff into jail. (Doc. 21.) Since plaintiff did not know the

23

identities of these individuals, plaintiff’s request to serve a subpoena on the TCSO was granted,

24

and the TCSO was directed to submit a response within 30 days of service. The subpoena was

25

executed on January 11, 2019. (Doc. 22.)

26
27
28

On February 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice claiming that he had not yet received any
documents from the TCSO. (Doc. 23.) In response, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause to

1

the TCSO why it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena. (Doc.

2

24.) Based on the Tuolumne County Counsel’s response to the Order to Show Cause as well as an

3

updated notice filed by plaintiff, it appears responsive documents have now been served on

4

plaintiff.1 Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause is discharged.
In a subsequent filing titled “Request for Further Instruction” (Doc. 29), plaintiff asks

5
6

whether he should file the documents received from the TCSO with the Court. Generally, such

7

documents are not to be filed with the Court until and unless they are in dispute.

8

Plaintiff also moves to amend his complaint to substitute the real names of the Doe

9

defendants. In addition, plaintiff seeks to clarify certain factual details in his pleading and to add

10

new defendants. Considering the procedural posture of this case and plaintiff’s right to amend his

11

pleading once as a matter of course, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), this motion will be denied as

12

moot. The Court thus ORDERS that:

13

1. The March 12, 2019, Order to Show Cause (Doc. 26) is DISCHARGED;

14

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 25) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff shall file his third

15

amended complaint within thirty days from the date of this Order;

16

3. Plaintiff’s request for further instruction (Doc. 29) is GRANTED; and

17

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on counsel for County of

18

Tuolumne:
Lynn A. Garcia
Spinelli, Donald & Nott
601 University Avenue, Suite 225
Sacramento, CA 95825

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated:

23

April 25, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is correct that TCSO’s response was mailed to him on February 12, 2019, slightly beyond the 30-day
deadline set forth in the Court’s Order. While the response was indeed untimely, the Court declines to impose
sanctions on the TCSO for this brief delay.
1

2