Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING RESPONSE

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This 

action is proceeding against Defendants Garcia, Valdez, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stepp, Collier, 

Torres, Delia, Jr., and Tordsen (“Defendants”) for use of excessive physical force, in violation of 

the United States Constitution. 

On December 4, 2013, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s three motions to 

compel for failure to comply with a prior order requiring Plaintiff to include a proof of service 

with all future filings stating service was effected on Defendants’ counsel. On December 19, 

2013, Plaintiff filed a response stating that he submitted proofs of service with his filings, although 

he may have erred in filling them out correctly.

In an order filed on October 3, 2013, Plaintiff was provided with a proof of service form 

and warned that all future filings must be accompanied by a completed proof of service. Plaintiff 

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 90 Filed 03/18/14 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

2

was also instructed, in plain language, how to fill out the form. As such, Plaintiff’s attempt to 

excuse his noncompliance based on his pro se status is unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s subsequent filings 

were out of compliance with the October 3, 2013, order and they were appropriately stricken.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response is deemed ADDRESSED, and to the extent it may be 

construed as seeking reconsideration, it is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b); Local Rule 230(j).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 90 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2