Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00665/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00665-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY F. DUNLAP, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

C. O. RANDOW, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-0665 JSW (PR)

ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANT’S LETTER TO THE

COURT AND INSTRUCTIONS TO

THE CLERK

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City,

California, filed this civil rights complaint, alleging Defendant Randow subjected him to

inappropriate sexual contact. On October 30, 2007, after more than one year had passed

since Defendant filed his last motion in this case seeking an extension, the Court ordered

Defendant to file a dispositive motion in this matter within sixty days or the case would

be set down for trial. The Court noted that an extension would only be granted upon a

showing of exceptional circumstances. 

On October 31, 2007, Defendant responded to the Court’s order by sending a

letter of explanation addressed to the undersigned and attached an earlier letter to

Plaintiff regarding discovery. The Court notes that the letter from Defendant’s counsel

does not constitute a motion seeking relief, and the Court will not consider requests not

made in proper motion form. However, the Clerk shall file Defendant’s letter. 

Moreover, while Defendant’s letters to the Court and the attachment to Plaintiff

document discovery difficulties, it also reflects that Defendants have failed to take any

Case 3:05-cv-00665-JSW Document 29 Filed 11/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

action for months after they did not hear back from Plaintiff, although they apparently

told Plaintiff in a letter dated June 13, 2007, that they would file a motion to compel if he

failed to respond to that letter. It appears they waited until after Plaintiff failed to appear

for a deposition on October 2, 2007, although it does not appear there had been any

contact by Plaintiff in the intervening months. At that point, Defendant sent Plaintiff a

proposed joint letter brief on October 24, 2007, which was apparently intended to be

filed in support of a discovery motion. 

It appears that Defendant’s letters were sent to Plaintiff’s prior address, rather

than his current state prison address. On June 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a letter with the

Court that documents that he has been returned to prison and apparently remains there. 

Therefore, it appears that Defendant’s counsel has been attempting to reach Plaintiff at

the incorrect address. The Court notes that in Plaintiff’s most recent communication

with the Court received on July 9, 2007, he states that he has not responded to the

discovery requests of Defendant’s counsel, as they have failed to send him the papers

that they claim to have sent him. 

It is unknown by the Court whether Plaintiff served his letters to the Court which

include the change of address on Defendant. In the order of service, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to serve all communications with the Court on Defendant or Defendant’s

counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff is reminded that all communications with the Court must be

served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel, by mailing a true copy of the document to

Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. The Clerk is directed to send Defendant’s counsel a

copy of the documents received by the Court from Plaintiff on June 13, 2007 and July 9,

2007.

Given that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, the Court expects Defendant to

promptly complete outstanding discovery and/or depositions and comply with the

Court’s scheduling order. Any requests for relief made to the Court must be raised as a

Case 3:05-cv-00665-JSW Document 29 Filed 11/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

motion, not in letter or notice form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 14, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00665-JSW Document 29 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

DUNLAP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RANDOW et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-00665 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 14, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Henry F. Dunlap

P.O. Box 600

V23360

Tracy, CA 95378-0600

Timothy Patrick Murphy

Edrington Schirmer & Murphy

The Terraces

2300 Contra Costa Boulevard

Suite 450

Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Dated: November 14, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-00665-JSW Document 29 Filed 11/14/07 Page 4 of 4