West v. Pettigrew et al

Filing 142

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/28/14 DENYING 138 Motion for order re contempt; Plaintiff may only file the following documents: a. One dispositive motion, limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support o f the motion and one reply to any opposition; b. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such); c. Only one non-dispositive motion pending at any time. Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and d. One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations. Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MACK A. WEST,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-1692 JAM CKD P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

RYAN PETTIGREW, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Prisoner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

Before the court is plaintiff’s April 11, 2014 motion for order “re contempt of court.” (ECF No.

18

138.) This motion is duplicative of plaintiff’s February 22, 2014 motion requesting that the court

19

hold California Medical Facility in contempt for not providing plaintiff items he requested in a

20

subpoena. (See ECF No. 122.) The court denied this and related motions on March 27, 2014,

21

stating that plaintiff’s subpoena was improperly served and did not comply with an earlier court

22

order requiring plaintiff to “send any subpoenas directed at CMF to the United States Marshal

23

Service so that it may serve the documents on plaintiff’s behalf.” (ECF No. 130 at 6, citing ECF

24

No. 100 at 2.) Since that order issued, the docket of this action does not indicate that the United

25

States Marshal has served a subpoena on CMF on plaintiff’s behalf. Thus the instant motion is

26

frivolous and will be denied.

27
28

Moreover, plaintiff’s filing of frivolous motions is a burden on this court and impedes the
proper prosecution of this action. Plaintiff’s future filings shall therefore be limited as set forth
1

1

below.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3

1. Plaintiff’s April 11, 2014 motion for order re contempt of court (ECF No. 138) is

4
5
6
7

denied; and
2. Plaintiff may only file the following documents:
a. One dispositive motion, limited to one memorandum of points and authorities
in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition;

8

b. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such);

9

c. Only one non-dispositive motion pending at any time. Plaintiff is limited to one

10

memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any

11

opposition; and

12
13

d. One set of objections to any future findings and recommendations.
Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly filed documents being stricken

14

from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

15

Dated: April 28, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21

2 / west1692.limit

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2