Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-28/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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S 

ADDRESS

(ECF No. 111)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, and Allison 

(“Defendants”) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the 

incident on January 4, 2020.

On August 28, 2024, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, (ECF No. 65), be granted. 

(ECF No. 106.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings 

and recommendations on October 4, 2024. (ECF Nos. 108, 109.) The findings and 

recommendations, together with Plaintiff’s objections, are currently pending before the assigned 

District Judge.

///

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 112 Filed 12/02/24 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

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and a document titled 

“Ex Parte Motion.” (ECF Nos. 110, 111.)

In the motion, Plaintiff explains that on November 16, 2024 he was transferred to a 

different institution, but was unable to obtain writing materials until November 22. (ECF No. 

111.) As of the time of writing, Plaintiff was separated from his property, so he was not 

completely sure of the complete case number or that he used the correct address for defense 

counsel when he served his notice of change of address. Plaintiff further states that he did not 

serve Defendants with a copy of his ex parte motion, but he will rectify that as soon as he receives 

his property if he has made any mistakes. Plaintiff does not otherwise request any relief from the 

Court. (Id.) 

Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s ex parte motion, but 

the Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

To the extent Plaintiff requests the correct address for Defendants’ attorney, the request is 

granted. Plaintiff is informed that the mailing address provided for Jon S. Allin is as follows:

Jon S. Allin

California Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

1300 I Street

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244

Plaintiff is further informed that defense counsel was electronically served with a copy of 

Plaintiff’s notice of change of address and ex parte motion when they were docketed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for attorney’s address, (ECF No. 111), is 

HEREBY GRANTED, as discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 112 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2