Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01027/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01027-3/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

ERIC WICK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1027 EFB P

vs.

ANGELEA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 26, 2010, he filed a “motion for order compelling discovery,” in which

he seeks the addresses for where defendants Prosper and Peck can be served with process. 

Dckt. No. 23. Defendants Mejia and Hirai opposed the motion on May 13, 2010, arguing that

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that judicial intervention is necessary, as plaintiff has neither

made a public records request nor sought such information from defendants Mejia or Hirai

through discovery. Dckt. No. 26.

On April 8, 2010 the court directed plaintiff to provide new instructions for service or

process upon defendants Prosper and Peck, and informed plaintiff that he could seek such

information through discovery, the California Public Records Act, California Government Code

§§ 6250, et seq., or any other means available. Dckt. No. 17. The court also informed plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-01027-GEB-EFB Document 40 Filed 08/10/10 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

2

that if his access to the required information was denied or unreasonably delayed, he could seek

judicial intervention. Id. It appears that available avenues for seeking the addresses of

defendants Prosper and Peck remain available to plaintiff, and he has therefore not shown that

the required information has been denied or unreasonably delayed. Thus, he has failed to

demonstrate that judicial intervention is necessary at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 26, 2010 motion to

compel is DENIED.

Dated: August 10, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01027-GEB-EFB Document 40 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2