Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03368/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03368-5/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

 Defendants Sean Fitzgerald and the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department filed their 1

executed waivers of service with the court on April 14, 2010. (Doc. No. 19.) Defendant Richard

Strasser filed his executed waiver of service with the court a day later on April 15, 2010. (Doc.

No. 20.) 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXIOS ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3368 DAD P

vs.

SEAN FITZGERALD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has two motions pending before the court.

First, on April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting the date and time that

his USM-286 forms were served upon defendants. However, this information is already

available to plaintiff in an attachment to defendants’ executed waivers of summons.

1

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s request as moot.

Second, on April 21, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court direct

defendants to produce discovery. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to obtain from defendants onboard

patrol vehicle camera recordings and call-for-service records. On May 17, 2010, the court issued

Case 2:09-cv-03368-DAD Document 25 Filed 05/20/10 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

a discovery and scheduling order in this case. Therefore, plaintiff may now propound discovery

requests directly to the defendants through their counsel. As explained in the court’s May 17,

2010 discovery and scheduling order, parties shall not file discovery requests with the court

except when required by Local Rules 250.1(a), 250.2(c), 250.3(c) and 250.4(c). The court will

consider a motion to compel discovery only after the parties have exhausted all good faith efforts

to obtain such through the ordinary course of discovery. Accordingly, the court will deny

plaintiff’s request for an order directing defendants to produce discovery as premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 12, 2010 motion requesting the date and time in which his

USM-286 forms were served on defendants (Doc. No. 18) is denied as moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s April 21, 2010 motion requesting a court order directing the

production of records (Doc. No. 21) is denied as premature.

DATED: May 19, 2010.

DAD:sj

alex3368.411

Case 2:09-cv-03368-DAD Document 25 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2