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)
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?