Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05453/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05453-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J.S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5453 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

TRO OR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION; DENYING REQUEST

FOR DISCOVERY

(Docket Nos. 11 & 13)

Keith Wayne Candler, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Salinas Valley

State Prison (“SVSP”), filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

various SVSP officials. The Court found cognizable plaintiff’s claims of excessive force

against various defendants. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

(“TRO”) or preliminary injunction against numerous SVSP officials, seeking to prohibit them

from using a certain restraint device on inmates. Plaintiff has neither complied with the notice

requirement of Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor certified the

reasons for his not providing such notice, as required by Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a TRO or a preliminary injunction is

DENIED.

Plaintiff has also filed with the Court a letter requesting discovery of documents from

defendants. Plaintiff must not file discovery requests with the Court; discovery requests are to

Case 3:04-cv-05453-MMC Document 15 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

If, however, plaintiff thereafter files a motion to compel, after satisfying the “meet and

confer” requirements of the discovery rules, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A), plaintiff may

attach his discovery requests as exhibits to such motion.

2

be served only on the opposing party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 5(d).1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for production of documents is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 11 & 13.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05453-MMC Document 15 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2