Rodgers v. Maxwell, et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/3/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 23 request. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMAR SHAY RODGERS, 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-1913 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER GARETT L. MAXWELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff wrote a letter to the undersigned. While not 19 entirely clear, it appears that plaintiff asks the court to determine when defendant Maxwell 20 worked for the Anderson Police Department, and to “look on the net and see that the Redding 21 P.D. officer’s [are] using excessive force on local citizens,” and that the Redding office “has been 22 under investigation” due to excessive force claims. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff is advised that the 23 court does not perform investigations for any party. Once defendants have appeared in this 24 action, the court will issue a discovery and scheduling order, and plaintiff may seek discovery 25 from defendants at that time. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 23) is denied. 26 Dated: February 3, 2015 27 28 /rodg1913.den 1

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?