Hornbuckle v. Washington-Adduci

Filing 41

ORDER ON MOTIONS by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying as unnecessary 31 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; denying 32 Motion to Compel; granting 40 Motion for Service. (Certificate of Service Attached) (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TYNISHA MARIE HORNBUCKLE, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-05527-PJH ORDER ON MOTIONS v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 31, 32, 40 WARDEN MATEVOUSIAN, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint. Defendants have filed a 14 motion for summary judgment and plaintiff filed an opposition. Presently pending are 15 several miscellaneous motions filed by plaintiff. The court ordered service and four 16 defendants were served. The United States Marshal (“USM”) was unable to effectuate 17 service on defendants Raski and Snell. Plaintiff was informed that she must provide 18 more information so these defendants can be served. Plaintiff was told that she could 19 seek such information through the California Public Records Act, requesting subpoenas 20 or any other means available. Plaintiff found the address for one defendant; therefore the 21 court will order the USM to conduct service. Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to 22 provide the information for the other defendant, yet it does not appear that she has 23 requested this information through discovery. 24 Plaintiff is advised that the court becomes involved in discovery when there is a 25 dispute between the parties. Discovery requests and responses normally are exchanged 26 between the parties without a copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (listing 27 discovery requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they are 28 used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a 1 discovery dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves will the court intervene in 2 the discovery process. To promote the goal of addressing only atypical disagreements 3 (rather than becoming an overseer of all discovery), the court requires that the parties 4 meet and confer to try to resolve their disagreements before seeking court intervention. 5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is 6 a prisoner, the Court does not require in-person meetings and instead allows the prisoner 7 and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or exchange of letters. Although 8 the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of the rule remains 9 the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute. Plaintiff should seek this information 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 through discovery. In addition, the court will also provide plaintiff with a subpoena and 12 she must follow the instructions set forth below. CONCLUSION 13 14 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file a response to her amended complaint (Docket No. 31) is DENIED as unnecessary. 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 32) is DENIED. 17 3. Plaintiff is informed that as a pro se litigant, plaintiff needs the court’s Clerk to 18 19 20 21 22 issue a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Therefore, the Clerk shall send to plaintiff 1 blank records subpoena form for plaintiff to fill out and return to the court so that the Clerk may issue the subpoena and the USM may serve it on the subpoenaed party. Plaintiff needs to fill in all of the necessary information, but must leave the signature line blank so that the Clerk may sign it. 4. Plaintiff’s motion for service (Docket No. 40) is GRANTED. The United States 23 Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with 24 25 attachments and copies of this order on defendant Dr. David J. Snell at 116 Draeger Road, Moraga, CA 94556 and at 23500 Kasson Rd., Tracy, CA 95304. 26 27 28 2 1 Defendant shall follow the instructions in the court’s prior order of service (Docket No. 2 22). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2017 5 6 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 7 8 9 \\candoak.cand.circ9.dcn\data\users\PJHALL\_psp\2016\2016_05527_Hornbuckle_v_Washington-Adduci_(PSP)\16-cv-05527-PJHserve2.docx 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 TYNISHA MARIE HORNBUCKLE, Case No. 16-cv-05527-PJH Plaintiff, 6 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 8 WARDEN MATEVOUSIAN, et al., Defendants. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 12 13 14 15 16 That on June 26, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 17 18 19 20 Tynisha Marie Hornbuckle ID: 66383-097 FCI Aliceville 11070 Highway 14 P O Box 4000 Aliceville, AL 35442 21 22 Dated: June 26, 2017 23 24 25 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 28 By:________________________ Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 4

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?