Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00942/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00942-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAL AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00942-EMC 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S LETTER 

DATED MAY 30, 2016

Docket No. 60

The Court has received another letter from Plaintiff related to discovery. In essence, 

Plaintiff’s letter contains interrogatories, document requests, requests for admission, etc. to which 

he seeks responses from Defendants. Consistent with the Court’s prior order of June 7, 2016, see

Docket No. 59 (order), the Court will not grant Plaintiff any relief at this juncture. Discovery is a 

process that takes place between the parties; a court becomes involved in the discovery process 

only where there is a discovery dispute that the parties cannot resolve after meeting and conferring 

in good faith. Plaintiff has failed to show (at least at this point) he has followed the Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure in issuing discovery requests and that Defendants have refused to provide 

responses to any such discovery requests, even after the parties have met and conferred. The 

Court recommends that Plaintiff contact the Legal Help Center where he may seek advice to better 

understand the discovery process. (The Legal Help Center is not a part of the United States 

District Court; it is a free service offered by the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association 

of San Francisco.) Help is provided by appointment only. The appointment line is 415-782-8982.

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-00942-EMC Document 61 Filed 06/10/16 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

The Court, however, advises Defendants that they should consider Plaintiff’s letter to be 

formal discovery requests, particularly given Plaintiff’s pro se status. The Court further advises 

Defendants that it expects them to take into account Plaintiff’s pro se status in their dealings with 

him. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 60.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00942-EMC Document 61 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 2