Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02342/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02342-13/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM TOWNSEND, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-2342 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a document in which he makes several requests. First, he asks that the 

court direct the Clerk of the Court to issue ten subpoenas and send them to plaintiff. This request 

will be denied. If plaintiff wishes to obtain issued subpoenas, he must specify in his request who 

the subpoenas are for and what documents he seeks.

Second, plaintiff asks that the court direct the Clerk of the Court to provide plaintiff with a 

status report as to “the Pending Motion before this court.” However, there are no pending 

motions.

Third, plaintiff asks that the court order defendants Cherry, Junker and Singh to file their 

answer. However, their answer was filed last October. ECF No. 47.

Finally, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the February 27, 2014 denial of the “motion to 

compel” he filed January 24, 2014. Plaintiff fails to point to any reason why the court should 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02342-CKD Document 60 Filed 03/20/14 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

reconsider the February 27, 2014 order or address any of the reasons identified by the court as to 

why his motion to compel was denied. His request for reconsideration will therefore be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY OREDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request that the court direct the Clerk of the Court to issue ten subpoenas 

and send them to plaintiff (ECF No. 59) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request that the court direct the Clerk of the Court to provide plaintiff with a 

status report as to “the Pending Motion before this court” is denied. 

3. Plaintiff’s request that the court order defendants Cherry, Junker and Singh to file their 

answer is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s request that the court reconsider the February 27, 2014 denial of his January 

24, 2014 “motion to compel” is denied.

Dated: March 20, 2014

1

town2342.abs(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02342-CKD Document 60 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 2