Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00538-8/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

RANDALL BROWN,

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

vs.

R.L. CLARK, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Order and Interrogatories.” Id. On November 15, 2006,

plaintiff filed three more motions with the same title. (Docket Nos. 41-43.) These filings appear

to be interrogatories. Plaintiff has previously been informed that discovery requests are not to be

filed with the court unless and until a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Orders filed December 21, 2005 and March 22,

2006. Moreover, discovery closed in this action on January 27, 2006. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

“motions” will be denied.

On August 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for Scheduled

Court Calls or Scheduled Court Appearance.” (Id.) It appears plaintiff seeks a court order

Case 2:05-cv-00538-RRB -JFM Document 45 Filed 01/31/07 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

2

providing for his attendance at trial. Plaintiff is advised that the court will issue a writ of habeas

corpus ad testificandum for his attendance at trial at the appropriate time. Plaintiff need not

make a formal request for attendance at trial. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 25, 2006 motion is denied (docket no. 40);

2. Plaintiff’s three motions, filed November 15, 2006 (docket nos. 41-43) are

denied; and

3. Plaintiff’s August 22, 2006 motion is denied (docket no. 38).

DATED: January 30, 2007.

/001; brow0538.dsc

Case 2:05-cv-00538-RRB -JFM Document 45 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2