Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00538-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0538 DFL JFM P

vs.

R. L. CLARK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion

for Discovery Order.” The court construes this document as a discovery request. Plaintiff is

again informed, see Order filed December 21, 2005, that court permission is not necessary for

discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that

party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response

and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery

requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue.

On December 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion for

Scheduling Order.” There is no request for court action contained in this document and court

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00538-RRB -JFM Document 33 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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

records reflect that a scheduling order was filed herein on October 11, 2005. Plaintiff’s motion

will be disregarded.

On March 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. By this

motion, plaintiff seeks to amend his prayer for relief in this action. The motion is not, however,

accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. Cf. Local Rule 15-220 (requiring that all

complaints be complete in themselves without reference to prior pleadings). Plaintiff’s motion to

amend will be denied without prejudice.

Finally, the court notes that none of the aforementioned documents were served

on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration

must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is required to serve all documents in

this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See

Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of

defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the

defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by mailing a

copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B). 

Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating the date an

accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to which it

was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 15, 2005 motion for discovery is construed as a discovery

request and, so construed, shall be disregarded;

2. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2005 motion shall be disregarded; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00538-RRB -JFM Document 33 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3. Plaintiff’s March 2, 2006 motion to amend is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: March 21, 2006.

12

brow0538.mos

Case 2:05-cv-00538-RRB -JFM Document 33 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3