Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01308/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01308-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESHANE J. HOLMES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1308 DFL PAN P

vs.

STEVE TEER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion for

Admissions of Authenticity of Documents pursuant to Rule 36(a), Fed.R. of C.P., and Rule 402

and Article X of the Fed.R. of Evidence.” The court construes this as a request for admissions

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for

discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor the

opposing party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a

response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are

at issue. The document filed by plaintiff on June 22, 2006 will be disregarded.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/28/06 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

On June 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion in limine. The time for filing motions

in limine will be set, as appropriate, in a pretrial order issued after pretrial conference on the

papers, which is presently set for December 8, 2006. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is premature

and will be denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2006 motion is construed as a request for admissions and,

so construed, will be disregarded. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery requests

or responses, except as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including,

but not limited to, a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2006 motion in limine is denied without prejudice to its

renewal at a later stage of these proceedings.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12

holm1308.mos

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2