Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02114/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02114-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ALLEN MAZURAK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2114 GEB GGH P

vs.

CA. DEPT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for extension of time, and reset

schedualing [sic] order....” and a “motion to keep proceeding & pleading confidential.” These

documents were not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to

the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to

be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has

filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendants, then documents submitted by

plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendants. Every document submitted

conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate

stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants or their attorney and

the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02114-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 09/07/05 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

2

The basis of plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to re-set the scheduling

order is to allow plaintiff to file a motion to compel discovery because defendants failed to

respond to plaintiff’s second set of discovery requests which were due by August 11, 2005,

according to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that he needs more time because he believes he is

required to meet and confer (in the form of a letter to defendants) prior to filing a motion to

compel discovery. In the first place, as noted, plaintiff has failed to file an appropriate certificate

of service; in the second place, even when all parties proceed with counsel, there is no

requirement for a joint statement re: discovery disagreement prior to filing a motion to compel

where “there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request....” Local

Rule 37-251(e)(1). In the third place, plaintiff pro se is not subject to the provisions of Local

Rule 37-251, absent order of the court, prior to filing any motion to compel, which order the

court has not made. See, Order filed on December 2, 2004. Finally, notwithstanding plaintiff’s

failure to demonstrate service of his request for an extension of time, defendants’ counsel filed a

response, noting the absence of a proof of service accompanying plaintiff’s motion but

demonstrating that he did receive the request. Defendants’ counsel avers, in the August 24, 2005

declaration he submitted, that he served plaintiff with responses to the requests at issue and

without objections by mail and by facsimile on August 18, 2005. Therefore, as to plaintiff’s

motion for an extension of time for the purpose of filing a motion to compel discovery, the court

will reach that request and deny it as moot since defendants have acknowledged receipt of that

motion and have provided a substantive response. 

As to plaintiff’s “motion to keep proceedings and pleading confidential,” that

motion will be denied without prejudice, plaintiff having failed to show proper service. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and to reset the scheduling order,

docketed as filed on August 22, 2005, is denied as moot;

2. Plaintiff’s “motion to keep proceedings and pleading confidential,” also

Case 2:03-cv-02114-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 09/07/05 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

3

docketed as filed on August 22, 2005, is denied without prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to have

demonstrated proper service of the motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to properly serve

any documents subsequently filed in this action, and failure to include a proper certificate of

service with such filing, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 9/7/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mazu2114.35

Case 2:03-cv-02114-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 3