Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02481/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02481-2/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

 Plaintiff’s letter was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document

submitted to the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is

required to serve all documents in this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court

on behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on

the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by mailing a

copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff

must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of

the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local

Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COY PHELPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2481 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court seeking

information about jury selection and copies of all information provided to jurors.1 This matter is set for

Case 2:03-cv-02481-MCE -JFM Document 86 Filed 06/14/05 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

jury trial on January 4, 2006. Plaintiff’s request is premature and will therefore be denied.

On May 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled “Notice of Non Compliance of

Courts Pretrial Conference Order.” In that document, plaintiff asserts that he cannot participate in the

pretrial conference because he is confined in an institution and defendants have failed to comply with

discovery requests. Plaintiff is informed that the pretrial conference will be conducted on the papers

without appearance by any party, and that defendants’ alleged failure to cooperate in discovery will not

excuse plaintiff from the requirements of this court’s revised scheduling order. Plaintiff is cautioned that

failure to timely file a pretrial statement in accordance with the requirements of the February 18, 2005

scheduling order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Finally, on May 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion to Impose

Sanctions Upon Respondents.” By this motion, plaintiff seeks imposition of sanctions due to

defendants’ alleged failure to respond to discovery requests. Discovery closed in this action on April

29, 2005. (Revised Scheduling Order, filed February 18, 2005, at 5.) Plaintiff’s motion for discovery

sanctions is untimely and will therefore be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 4, 2005 request for information about jury procedures is denied

without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s May 26, 2005 motion for sanctions is denied as untimely.

DATED: June 13, 2005.

12

phel2481.o3

Case 2:03-cv-02481-MCE -JFM Document 86 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2