Tierney v. Torikawa et al

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRESENCE AT HEARING AND FOR DISCOVERY re: 65 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 1/22/2013. (afc) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notificat ions received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY,
#A0201434,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LOIS TORIKAWA, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

NO. 1:12-cv-00056 LEK-RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
PRESENCE AT HEARING AND FOR
DISCOVERY

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRESENCE AT HEARING AND FOR DISCOVERY
Plaintiff asks to be present at the February 2, 2013
hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”) specifically
directs that pretrial proceedings in prisoner actions be
conducted by telecommunications technologies that allow the
prisoner to stay in the penal institution to the extent
practicable.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(f).

Plaintiff will

participate in the hearing by telephone and his request to be
physically present at the hearing is DENIED.
Plaintiff also vaguely requests “Discovery.”
ECF #65.

See Mot.,

He states: “Plaintiff was prevented from filing and has

filed a writ of mandamus on this issue.”

Id.

Because he

attaches a petition for writ of mandamus to the Hawaii Supreme
Court to his motion, in which he complains that, on or about
April 27, 2012, he was prevented from filing a Step 3 grievance

by another inmate’s false statements, the court construes this as
Plaintiff’s submission of evidence that he was prevented from
filing a third-step grievance regarding the issues set forth in
this Complaint.

See ECF #65-2-65-4.

The court will consider

these documents when determining Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to Exhaust, as well as any other arguments or
relevant documents Plaintiff submits regarding the exhaustion of
his claims prior to the hearing.

Plaintiff’s vague motion for

discovery is DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff requests permission to call the
court.

Plaintiff may call the Office of the Clerk during

business hours.

He may not, however, attempt to personally speak

with the district or magistrate judges assigned to his case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 22, 2013.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Tierney v. Torikawa, et al., 1:12-cv-00056 LEK-RLP; Order Denying Motions for Presence
at Hearing and For Discovery; G:\docs\prose attys\Non-disp Ords\DMP\2013\Tierney 12-56
lek bmk (presence at hrg, disc.).wpd

2