Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05504/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05504-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BRINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. STOCKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5504-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Doc. 57)

Plaintiff David Brinson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2005, the court issued

an order requiring defendants Stockman, Freitas, Meske, Dill, Pineda, Marshall, Means, Nicholls,

and Galaza (“defendants”) to show cause why default should not be entered against them for failing

to file a response to plaintiff’s second amended complaint, in compliance with the court’s order of

May 18, 2005. Defendants filed a response to the order to show cause on July 18, 2005, along with

an answer to the second amended complaint.

The court will discharge the order to show cause and allow defendants’ answer to the second

amended complaint stand. However, the court deems it necessary to correct a misrepresentation in

defendants’ response. In paragraph thirteen (13.), defendants represent that a court staff member

inquired into why defendants had not responded to the court’s order. This is incorrect and would

be an improper ex parte communication if it had occurred. 

Through events in actions other than this one, the court was aware that former Deputy

Attorney General Gregory Fayard had left the Attorney General’s Office. After noting on the court’s

Case 1:03-cv-05504-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 08/10/05 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

1

 A receptionist stated that Mr. Flynn was filling in for Supervising Attorney General Jennifer Neill in her

absence.

2

system that Mr. Fayard was still listed as counsel of record for defendants in this action, despite the

change in his address in the system to a private law firm, a court staff member left a message on the

voicemail of Supervising Deputy Attorney General James Flynn inquiring who the case had been

reassigned to and requesting that a notice of reassignment of counsel be submitted.1 That was the

extent of the communication. At no time did the staff member reference any of the proceedings in

this action.

Accordingly, the order to show cause, filed June 28, 2005, is HEREBY DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05504-AWI -SMS Document 60 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2