Oliver v. Grounds et al

Filing 17

ORDER re 16 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/6/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 8 v. R. GROUNDS, Warden, et al., Defendants. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING COURT ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, 6 7 No. C 12-00176 SBA (PR) MAURICE P. OLIVIER, / Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court acknowledge receipt of certain documents that he submitted with his complaint and in forma pauperis (IFP) application. (Docket no. 13.) On January 11, 2012, Plaintiff submitted his complaint and IFP application. The Court confirms that on that same date, the Court also received the following documents: "Motion Requesting Order to Preserve Relevant Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65" (docket no. 4); "Motion Requesting Order For Disclosure Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)" (docket no. 5); "Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 65(a)(1)&(b)" (docket no. 6), "Notice Of and Request For Judicial Notice Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(d)" (docket no. 7); "Declaration In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746" (docket no. 8). Plaintiff also submitted two certificates of service pertaining to his complaint, IFP application, and the documents referenced above. This Order terminates Docket no. 13. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 DATED: 6/6/12 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.12\Olivier0176.OrderreDOCS.frm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.12\Olivier0176.OrderreDOCS.frm

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?