Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00776/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00776-24/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI

Plaintiff,

v.

T. WAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00776-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

ISSUANCE OF RULING ON LETTERS TO

CLERK’S OFFICE, ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT

C

(Doc. 78) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A COPY OF

THE DOCKET FOLLOWING THE

DOCKETING OF THIS ORDER

On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request, in letter form, seeking the issuance of an order

ruling on his motions, attached as Exhibit C. (Doc. 78, court record p. 4.) Exhibit C consists of two

letters to the Clerk of the Court, dated November 15, 2009, and November 26, 2009, by Plaintiff.

Letters to the Clerk of the Court are not motions, and do not and will not receive orders in

response. Further, as Plaintiff was properly notified by the Clerk’s Office, the Clerk is unable to

respond to individual inquiries on case status. Although Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking a case

status, his inquires in fact constitute a request for case specific information and are considered status

inquiries. The Clerk’s Office is unable to respond to such inquiries.

If Plaintiff wishes to seek relief via an order on a matter relating to this case, he must file a

motion with the court. Letters to the Clerk of the Court are not motions, as previously stated, and

will not receive court rulings. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a ruling on his letters to the Clerk’s

Office, attached as Exhibit C, is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 85 Filed 01/21/10 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

27

28

In light of the Plaintiff’s concern regarding his reply dated October 22, 2009, Plaintiff is

informed that his reply to Defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel responses to his

interrogatories, and his reply to Defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel responses to his

request for the production of documents have been received and filed. (Docs. 67, 75.) Therefore,

1

Plaintiff’s four motions to compel have been deemed submitted, and are currently being reviewed

on their merits by the undersigned. A ruling will be issued in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 20, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court regarding his reply to Defendants’

1

opposition to his motions to compel responses to his interrogatories. The letter was accompanied by a copy of the

reply, dated October 22, 2009. Upon inquiry from the Clerk’s Office, the Court directed that the reply be filed in,

reflected in docket entry 75. The Court also directed that the letter be filed in simply for the purpose of clarifying

the circumstances under which the reply was received and filed on December 3, 2009. (Doc. 74.) It is not clear why

the reply was not received along with Plaintiff’s other reply date October 22, 2009. (Doc. 67). The Court accepts

Plaintiff’s representation that it was mailed on October 22, 2009, and the reply will be considered when the Court

issues its ruling on Plaintiff’s motions to compel. The Court will not further address this issue.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00776-JLT Document 85 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2