Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06580-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORRIS LEE MESTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. M. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-6580 REC SMS P

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL A COPY

OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED WITH

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 3)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ORDER SEALING MEDICAL CHART

(Doc. 56)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

DECLARATION AND SURREPLY

(Docs. 58 and 60) 

Plaintiff Morris Lee Mester (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s complaint filed on November 12, 2004, against defendants Kim, Sacks, Neubarth,

Nicholes, Robinson, Plaza, and Malfi (“defendants”) on plaintiff’s claim that they violated the

Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. On August

26, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In their motion, defendants stated that they were not

served with the exhibits plaintiff submitted in support of his complaint. The exhibits should have

been provided to the Marshal for service along with the complaint, but were not. The Clerk’s Office

shall be directed to provide defendants with a copy of the exhibits. 

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 61 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

On November 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. On

November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed what he entitled an amended opposition, on November 30, 2005,

plaintiff filed a declaration, and on December 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a surreply. Plaintiff’s selftitled amended opposition relates not to the opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure

to exhaust, but to plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff contends that certain medical records have

been removed from his file and he seeks an order sealing his medical chart. Plaintiff has set forth

no grounds that support sealing his records. Accordingly, plaintiff’s description of the filing as an

amended opposition is disregarded, and plaintiff’s motion for a court order sealing his medical chart

shall be denied.

Plaintiff’s declaration addresses an encounter between plaintiff and a sergeant on November

26, 2005, and appears to have been filed solely to notify the court that the sergeant will testify for

plaintiff at trial. It is improper to file a declaration such as this, as it is unrelated to any pending

matter. If this matter is set for trial, plaintiff will be required to identify his trial witnesses at the

appropriate juncture. At this stage, it is premature to address any trial matters. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s declaration shall be stricken from the record. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was deemed submitted upon the filing of their reply. Local

Rule 78-230(m). Absent leave of court, plaintiff may not file a surreply. Given that plaintiff did not

seek and was not granted leave of court, plaintiff’s surreply shall be stricken from the record.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send defendants’ counsel a copy of the exhibits submitted

in support of the complaint;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order sealing his medical chart, erroneously identified

as an amended opposition, is DENIED; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 61 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Plaintiff’s declaration concerning a potential trial witness and plaintiff’s surreply are

STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06580-LJO -SMS Document 61 Filed 12/22/05 Page 3 of 3