Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01250-20/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

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

Plaintiff Sylester Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to enlighten him on how to 

file a motion for discovery pursuant to Local Rule 260. Plaintiff seeks information as to how to 

subpoena certain documents and refuse the falsity of documents. 

First, Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not issue advisory opinions or provide legal 

advice. Pro se litigants are obligated to follow the same rules as represented parties, and that selfrepresentation is not an excuse for noncompliance with court rules. Second, Defendant served a 

notice on Plaintiff advising him, in view of his pro se status, of the requirements for opposing a 

summary judgment motion under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 56); see

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985). 

SYLESTER WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SERGEANT R. ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01250-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AS TO LOCAL RULE 

260

[ECF No. 86]

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 96 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Third, in an order issued concurrently herewith, the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel and 

motion to subpoena certain discovery documents under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s present motion for enlightenment as to Rule 260 is DENIED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01250-SAB Document 96 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 2