Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00109-6/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

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

NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00109-GSA-PC

 

ORDER IN RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

(Doc. 40.)

Nicholas Christopher Pappas (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on January 27, 2014. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds 

with Plaintiff’s original Complaint, against defendant C/O Lopez (“Defendant”) for use of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On May 1, 2015, Defendant filed a 

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34.) On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 

motion. (Doc. 39.)

On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to notify Defendant or 

Defendant’s attorney of the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. 40.) 

As Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s First Informational Order: 

Once an attorney for a defendant appears in a pro se plaintiff's 

civil rights action (by filing an answer, a motion to dismiss, a 

motion for summary judgment, etc.), that attorney's office will 

receive notice of all filings through the Court's electronic filing 

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 41 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

system (ECM/ECF). A pro se plaintiff need not serve documents 

on counsel for a defendant.

(Doc. 2 at 4 ¶4.) Defendant’s attorney appeared in this case on May 1, 2015 by filing a motion 

for summary judgment on Defendant’s behalf. Therefore, the Court notified Defendant’s 

attorney of the filing of Plaintiff’s June 4, 2015 opposition through the Court’s electronic filing 

system. 

This order resolves Plaintiff’s request filed on June 4, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 41 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 2