Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122-14/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

ANDONAI EL-SHADDAI a.k.a. WILKERSON

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0122 DFL CMK P

vs.

WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and pro se in this civil

rights action. This action was removed to federal court on January 17, 2006. Since that time

plaintiff has filed twelve motions or requests for court action. (Docs. 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 31, 32,

35, 39, 42, 44, 45.) Most recently, plaintiff has filed a motion to compel documents (doc. 44)

opposition/objection to defendants’ answer to his amended complaint. (Doc. 46.) Defendants

have filed a response in opposition to motion to compel documents. (Doc. 46.) The court will

first address plaintiff’s motion to compel and plaintiff’s opposition and objection to the

defendants answer to his amended complaint. The court will then address plaintiff’s excessive

filings. 

In his February 22, 2007 motion to compel, plaintiff seeks an order directing

defendant Woodford to produce “all documents Filed promulgating the June 2003 California

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 49 Filed 03/05/07 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

Department of Corrections, High Desert State Prison, Operation Procedure #606 Pursuant to

Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the

Government Code. (Doc. 44.) In her response, defendant Woodford states that the requested

documents are not within her control; moreover, after a reasonable search, defendant Woodford

believes that the requested documents do not exist. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may request production

of documents which are in “possession, custody, or control” of another party. Fed. R. Civ. P

34(a). Because defendant is not in control of the requested documents, she has completely

responded to plaintiff’s request by informing him of such. Additionally, defendant Woodford

cannot be expected to provide documents which do not exist. Accordingly, the court will deny

plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. 

Plaintiff has filed an opposition and objection to defendants’ answer to his

amended complaint. The gist of the opposition appears to be that the answer “fails to meet

[defendants’] burden of proof of demonstrating that there is no dispute as to any material fact....” 

Defendants do not, however, bear the burden of establishing that there is no dispute as to any

material fact of plaintiff’s complaint in their answer. Instead, defendants answer must assert

defenses in law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b). Further, an opposition to an answer is not a proper

pleading. The court will order plaintiff’s opposition and objection to defendants’ answer

stricken from the record. 

Next, the court warns plaintiff that his filings are excessive. Plaintiff is warned

that he must adhere to the local rules and the court’s orders in prosecuting this action. Plaintiff’s

excessive filing of motions and requests impede the court’s ability to proceed with this litigation

in an expedient fashion. Plaintiff is hereby formally cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma

pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that he has filed

excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990);

see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff is cautioned that this

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 49 Filed 03/05/07 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

court views the number of motions filed to date as excessive and that consideration will be given

to restricted court access if plaintiff does not exercise appropriate restraint henceforth. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. 44) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s opposition and objection to defendants answer to his amended

complaint (doc. 46) is stricken from the record and disregarded.

3. Plaintiff is cautioned that continued excessive motion practice will result in

restrictions on his permission to file pleadings in this lawsuit. Plaintiff is further cautioned that

failure to comply with any portion of this or any other order of this court will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 2, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 49 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3