Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 102

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' 65 MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTS TO MOTIONS, 51 MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, 67 MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2012)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

TODD ASHKER and DANNY TROXELL,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

v.
GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et
al.,
Defendants.

12
13

________________________________/

14
15
16
17

No. C 09-5796 CW
ORDER DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTS TO
MOTIONS (Doc. No.
65), MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Doc. No. 51),
MOTION TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT (Doc.
No. 67) AND
GRANTING REQUEST
FOR CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE (Doc.
No. 99)

18
Pro se Plaintiffs1 Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell, inmates at
19
Pelican Bay State Prison, move for an extension of time to
20
supplement their previous motions for relief from interference,
21
filed on April 8, 2011 (docket no. 29), for an emergency
22
protective order, filed on June 20, 2011 (docket no. 51) and to
23
file a second amended complaint (docket no. 67).

Defendants

24
oppose the motions.

The motions were taken under submission on

25
the papers.
26
27
28

1

Since they filed these motions, Plaintiffs have obtained
legal representation.

1

Having read all the papers submitted by the parties, the

2

Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to supplement their previous

3

motions.

4

relief from interference (docket no. 61) and, on October 12, 2011,

5

issued an Order for further briefing on Plaintiff's motion for a

6

protective order (docket no. 64).

7

the Court denied Plaintiffs' claims based on retaliation but

8

requested that Defendants submit clarification of the basis for

9

confiscating Plaintiffs' documents that might be related to this

The Court has already denied Plaintiffs' motion for

In the October 12, 2011 Order,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

case.

11

their reasons for confiscating Plaintiffs' papers (docket no. 71).

12

On November 17, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendants'

13

clarification (docket no. 77).

14

On October 26, 2011, Defendants filed a brief clarifying

Defendants' clarification and Plaintiffs' response indicate

15

that many issues are in dispute.

16

briefs, Plaintiffs have obtained representation by counsel.

17

that Plaintiffs have legal representation, these disputes may be

18

easier to resolve by the parties without the Court's intervention.

19

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for a protective

20

order without prejudice and orders that the parties' attorneys

21

meet and confer and attempt to resolve their disputes.

22
23
24
25

Since the parties filed these
Now

Plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint (2AC)
is denied without prejudice to re-filing by counsel.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to supplement

26

motions (docket no. 65) is denied.

27

prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order (docket no.

28

51) so that the attorneys may meet and confer and attempt to
2

The Court denies without

1

resolve the issues raised therein on their own.

2

without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to file a 2AC (docket no.

3

67).

4

(CMC) be held on March 28, 2012 (docket no. 99).

5

this request and orders that, before the date of the CMC, the

6

parties meet and confer regarding the issues in dispute and, at

7

the CMC, inform the Court of their progress.

The Court denies

The parties have requested that a case management conference
The Court grants

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: 3/13/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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