Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00006-20/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. WILBER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-00006-SKO (PC)

ORDER STRIKING DUPLICATIVE 

MOTIONS

(Docs. 115 and 118)

ORDER DISREGARDING LATE REPLY

(Doc. 117)

Plaintiff Jason Latrell Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 4, 2010. This matter is 

currently set for jury trial on May 5, 2015, and the case has been referred to the Eastern District of 

California’s Pro Bono Program for appointment of voluntary counsel to represent Plaintiff. (Docs. 

97, 114.) 

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed (1) a motion to compel and to subpoena witnesses and 

documents, (2) a reply brief, and (3) a motion for reconsideration and to compel production of 

documents. (Docs. 115, 117, 118.)

Plaintiff’s two motions are duplicative of previous filings which were considered and 

decided by the Court. (Docs. 102, 108, 112, 113.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s two duplicative

motions are HEREBY ORDERED STRICKEN from the record.

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 121 Filed 08/25/14 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

Plaintiff’s reply brief is long overdue and his motion to which it relates was denied on 

August 4, 2014. (Docs. 102, 107, 112.) The Court nevertheless reviewed the reply brief, see

Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009), but earlier receipt of the reply would not 

have altered the ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s reply brief is 

deemed considered but DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00006-SKO Document 121 Filed 08/25/14 Page 2 of 2