Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02481/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02481-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COY PHELPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2481 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 23, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment as a

sanction against defendants for their alleged failure to respond to discovery. Discovery closed in

this action on April 29, 2005. (Revised Scheduling Order, filed February 18, 2005, at 5.) On

July 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a related request with the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for

discovery sanctions is untimely. His June 23, 2005 motion and his July 5, 2005 request will

therefore be denied.

On June 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude admission

of certain evidence at trial. This matter is currently pending resolution of defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. Should any of plaintiff’s remaining claims survive for trial, the court will

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02481-MCE -JFM Document 104 Filed 08/26/05 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

issue a pretrial order which will include timelines for filing motions in limine. Plaintiff’s June

27, 2005 motion is premature and will be denied without prejudice.

On July 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum

for the attendance of U.S. Probation Officer Richard Elkins at the trial of this matter. On July 11,

2005, Mr. Elkins filed a request for an extension of time to oppose petitioner’s motion. For the

reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice

to its renewal, as appropriate, at a later stage of these proceedings. Mr. Elkins’ request for an

extension of time will therefore be denied.

Finally, on August 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for service of summons and

the second amended complaint on R. L’Hoir. Plaintiff contends that this individual is the person

identified in the second amended complaint as “One Unknown Female Police Officer of the

Lodi, California Police Department.” Good cause appearing, counsel for the City of Lodi

defendants will be directed to inform the court within fifteen days whether service will be waived

for said officer and whether counsel will tender a defense on behalf of said officer. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s June 23, 2005 motion for default judgment as a discovery sanction,

and his July 5, 2005 request for default judgment on the same ground, is denied as untimely;

2. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2005 motion in limine is denied without prejudice to its

renewal at a later stage of these proceedings;

3. Plaintiff’s July 1, 2005 motion for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is

denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings;

4. Probation Officer Richard Elkins’ July 11, 2005 request for extension of time

is denied; and

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02481-MCE -JFM Document 104 Filed 08/26/05 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

5. Within fifteen days from the date of this order counsel for the City of Lodi

defendants shall inform the court in writing whether service will be waived for Officer R. L’Hoir

and whether counsel will tender a defense on behalf of said officer. 

DATED: August 25, 2005.

12

phel2481.o4

Case 2:03-cv-02481-MCE -JFM Document 104 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 3