Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01657/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01657-5/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1657 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Solano County Sheriff, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff filed this civil rights action as a jail inmate,

suing his jailors and proceeding without counsel. 

The court approved service on nine defendants and seven, all

except Davis and Solano County Sheriff, have answered. 

The Marshal has indicated that summons for Solano County

Sheriff was forwarded for personal service November 10, 2005.

Good cause appearing, the court hereby orders that:

1. July 7, 2005, findings and recommendations claims

against Solano County Sheriff be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 86 Filed 12/28/05 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

2

4(m) be vacated.

2. It appears plaintiff wishes to withdraw claims against

Davis. The court will dismiss such claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a) unless plaintiff indicates within 10 days that he wants to

pursue them. 

3. Plaintiff’s August 15 and 16, 2005, motions to grant and

extend discovery are denied because no court order is required

for plaintiff to conduct discovery. 

4. November 16, 2005, defendants Cullinson, Castro, Molloy

and Headley moved for a protective order prohibiting their

depositions. Defendants claim plaintiff is in custody of the

California Department of Corrections and assert that examining

them at deposition would imperil prison security. Plaintiff

filed a notice of change of address November 29, 2005, indicating

he is out of state custody and thus most of defendants’ arguments

are moot. No ground raised by defendants warrants a protective

order barring their examination at deposition, assuming the scope

of examination is limited by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and plaintiff

satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 for notice,

designating a deposition officer, and providing an authorized

method of recording. Defendants’ November 16, 2005, motion for a

protective order is denied.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 86 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 2