Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108-7/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

JOSE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VIGIL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-05108-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DISREGARDING OBJECTION TO

ORDER AND SELF-TITLED “DEPOSITIONS

TO RESPONDENT”

(Docs. 68 and 70)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SERVE ORDER ON PLAINTIFF BY

CERTIFIED MAIL

Plaintiff Jose Diaz (“plaintiff”) is a former 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 amended complaint, filed May 12, 2003, against defendant Vigil (“defendant”) for

violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical

needs. (Doc. 15.) 

On June 30, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be

imposed against him for failing to appear at his deposition. (Doc. 57.) On March 27, 2006, the

court discharged the order to show cause and did not impose sanctions on plaintiff. (Doc. 62.) On

May 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an objection to the court’s order issued on March 27, 2006, and a filing

entitled “Depositions to Respondent.” 

It appears that plaintiff filed an objection to the order of March 27, 2006, to set forth his

disagreement with the court’s finding that the only relevant justification tendered by plaintiff in his

response to the court’s order to show cause was that he did not receive the deposition notice.

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff has not sought relief from the order nor would it be logical for him to do so, as the order to

show cause was discharged and he was not sanctioned. A filing in which a party disagrees with

findings in an order but seeks no relief from the order is not a proper filing. Plaintiff’s objection

shall be disregarded. 

At the end of the objection, plaintiff appears to be requesting a response to previously served

discovery requests. This inclusion is misplaced given that plaintiff’s filing is largely an objection

to a previous order. Further, as set forth in a separate order issued concurrently with this order,

discovery closed on March 1, 2005, except for the issue of plaintiff’s deposition.

With respect to plaintiff’s self-titled “Depositions to Respondent,” plaintiff appears to be

responding to defendant’s request for production of documents at plaintiff’s deposition by stating

that plaintiff “presents all relevants [sic] that respondent requested.” (Doc. 70, p. 8.) The filing is

not a motion, a response to a motion, or a response to a court order. The court can discern no basis

for the submission of this filing and it shall be disregarded. To the extent that plaintiff seeks to

communicate with defendant regarding his deposition or other discovery, plaintiff should

communicate directly with defendant’s counsel without court involvement.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s objection and “Depositions to Respondent,” both filed

May 22, 2006, are HEREBY DISREGARDED. The Clerk’s Office shall serve this order on plaintiff

by certified mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 76 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2