Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01747-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SAFIDI CAUTHEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERA et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12 cv 01747 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICE AND MOTION FOR DOCUMENTS

(Documents 23 and 24)

Plaintiff David Safidi Cauthen, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 26, 2012. The 

action is proceeding on (1) excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Rivera, Negrete, Northcutt, Arreola, King and Waddle; (2) unreasonable search in violation of the 

Fourth and Eighth Amendments against Defendants Rivera, Negrete and Waddle; (3) deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant 

Mackey; and (4) violation of the First Amendment and RLUIPA against Defendants Rivera, Negrete 

and Waddle.

On August 22, 2013, Defendants Arreola, Mackey, Negrete, Northcutt, Rivera and Waddle 

filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has been granted an extension of time to oppose the motion.

On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Notice Inquiry to the Clerk of Court” and a motion 

requesting that the Court provide copies of certain documents. 

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 28 Filed 09/30/13 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

2

In Plaintiff’s “Notice Inquiry,” he asks whether all Defendants have been served. Though the 

Court does not generally respond to requests for status, it will provide information in this instance 

because some, but not all, Defendants have appeared. The motion to dismiss was filed by all 

Defendants except for Defendant King, who does not appear to have been served as of yet.

However, the United States Marshal has not yet informed the Court that it is unable to serve 

Defendant King. It is therefore still possible that Defendant King may be served at a later date.

In Plaintiff’s request for documents, he states that he has become separated from his legal 

property during a recent prison transfer. He requests copies of his entire October 26, 2012, 

complaint and the April 30, 2013, Findings and Recommendations. 

The Court generally does not provide copies of documents, and at this stage, the Court will 

not make an exception. On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a separate motion for the return of his 

legal property. In that motion, Plaintiff states that a request was made to Kern Valley State Prison 

on September 10, 2013, regarding the transfer of his property. Plaintiff also states that the matter is 

currently under formal and informal review. Plaintiff was transferred recently and the request was 

made two weeks ago, and it is therefore possible that Plaintiff will soon be provided with his 

property.1 As this may moot his request for copies of documents, the Court DENIES the motion 

without prejudice. Plaintiff may requests additional extensions of time to oppose the motion to 

dismiss if he continues to be without his legal property during the time for filing an opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

 

1 The Court will monitor further developments regarding the return of Plaintiff’s property and order Defendants to 

respond to his motion, if necessary.

Case 1:12-cv-01747-DLB Document 28 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 2