Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02520/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02520-33/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, No. CIV S-05-2520-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to

oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 107), filed on July 11, 2007. 

On June 26, 2007, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 98). Plaintiff

now seeks additional time to respond to the Defendant’s motion. Good cause appearing therefor,

the request will be granted. 

Plaintiff has also requested assistance in obtaining time in the law library. 

Because the court is granting Plaintiff an additional 30 days in which to respond to the Motion to

Dismiss, his request for additional law library access is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 109 Filed 07/26/07 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

2

continues to have difficulty with access to the law library, the court will entertain additional

requests for extension of time with a showing of good cause.

Next, in response to the court’s May 10, 2007, order regarding unserved

defendants R. Gunnis, S. Marshall, Murray, Olson, and Carl Michel Warvarovski, in which the

court directed plaintiff to provide additional information, plaintiff has submitted information

sufficient to identify and serve some of these individuals, as well as other unserved defendants

not addressed in the court’s order. Specifically, plaintiff has provided additional information as

to defendants Gray, Vasconcellos, Warvarovski, and Olson. The court will, therefore, provide

plaintiff with instructions for service of these defendants by the United States Marshal and will

require plaintiff to submit documents for service. 

Finally, plaintiff appears to seek an order compelling responses to discovery

requests. Specifically, plaintiff seeks an order “compelling” the State Personnel Board, the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Mule Creek State Prison to

provide information necessary to locate and serve defendants. That request is denied. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a party...fails...to serve answers or objections to interrogatories

submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the

interrogatories, or...to serve a written response to a request for

inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the

request, the court in which the action is pending on motion may

make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among

others it may take any action authorized under subparagraph (A),

(B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. 

Here, plaintiff has requested information from entities which are not parties to this action. 

Therefore, he cannot establish that a party has failed to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff

is reminded that discovery may only be served on parties to the action who have appeared. The

court refers plaintiff to the discovery order issued on May 16, 2007. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 109 Filed 07/26/07 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (107) is granted;

2. Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss within 30

days of the date of service of this order; 

3. Plaintiff’s request regarding law library access is denied without

prejudice;

4. Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling discovery is denied;

5. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form each for

defendants Gray, Vasconcellos, Warvarovski, and Olson (four forms total), one blank summons,

an instruction sheet, and a copy of the third amended complaint; and

6. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Four completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Five copies of the endorsed third amended complaint.

DATED: July 25, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 109 Filed 07/26/07 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

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, No. CIV S-05-2520-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the third amended complaint.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 109 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 4