Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407-6/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

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE III,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.ADAMS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5407 AWI SMS P 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER (Doc. 68.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE (Doc. 67.) 

Steven Joseph Noble (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

1. Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

On July 5, 2006, Defendants moved for leave to file an Amended Answer. Counsel for

Defendants states that due to a drafting error, the Answer erroneously averred that Plaintiff was

deprived of exercise for disciplinary reasons. Defendants intended to aver that Plaintiff was not

deprived of exercise for disciplinary reasons. In addition to the Motion, Defendants submitted an

Amended Answer. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED and the Amended Answer

submitted also on July 5, 2006, is deemed FILED. 

2. Motion for Telephonic Conference

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 71 Filed 07/07/06 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 June 13, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a pleading titled “Motion for Telephonic

Conference” wherein he states that a telephonic conference is necessary because he believes

Defendants will move for summary judgment and he needs to present evidence to support his

claims to avoid summary judgment, that Defendants are failing to comply with Plaintiff’s efforts

to obtain discoverable material, that Defendants have failed to admit the truth, that the pending

Motion to Compel discovery is related to his ability to properly prepare and oppose a Motion for

Summary Judgment and he needs to be able to address matters which affect and may determine

the sufficiency of Defendant’s Answers or Objections to the pending Motion to Compel. 

Local Rule 72-302(c)(1) provides only that the Magistrate Judge will resolve all

discovery motions submitted in civil cases pending before this Court. Local Rule 78-230(m)

further provides that all Motions submitted in prisoner cases where one party is proceeding in

propria persona “shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise

ordered by the Court.” Local Rule. 78-230(m). Here, Plaintiff is requesting that the Court hold a

telephonic conference so that Plaintiff may discuss issue concerning the pending Motion to

Compel, to present further evidence and address matters that may affect the Answers or

Objections made by Defendants to the Motion to Compel. 

As noted above, all Motions filed in cases such as this are to be submitted on the record

without oral argument. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to address the Opposition filed by

Defendants to the Motion to Compel, the appropriate mechanism for doing so is to file a Reply to

the Opposition. Insofar as Plaintiff wishes to further discuss the pending Motion to Compel, a

telephonic conference or hearing is unnecessary. The parties are given the opportunity to address

such issues in paper form, and, according to the Court Docket, have done so by filing a Motion to

Compel and an Opposition to the Motion to Compel. At this time, the Court finds no hearing is

required. Should the Court find it necessary to have the parties appear either in person or

telephonically, it shall so order. 

With regard to the presentation of evidence to avoid summary judgment, as no formal

Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed by the Defendants, it is inappropriate for Plaintiff

to provide evidence, orally or in writing, to oppose a non-existent motion. 

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 71 Filed 07/07/06 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

Accordingly, in light of the above, the Motion for Telephonic Conference is DENIED. 

3. Order

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED;

2. The Amended Answer is DEEMED filed as of the date of submission - July 5,

2006; and 

3. The Motion for Telephonic Conference is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 71 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 3