Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02644/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02644-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Zuri S. Young

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2644 LKK CMK P

vs.

Stratton, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, brings this

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are the following motions filed

by plaintiff: (1) “Application to File Late Motions and Oppositions with Good Cause” (doc. 44);

(2) two motions titled “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Witness(s)

at Trial” (docs. 46 and 52) and; “Request that Defendants Produce the Deposition Transcripts

which was Taken on October 27th 2005...”(doc. 48). Defendants have filed a motion to strike

plaintiff’s surreply to defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s January 19, 2006 opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 51-1.) 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 54 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff has previously ordered by the court to properly serve documents served in this 1

action. (Doc. 33.)

2

Plaintiff’s application to file late motions and oppositions was not accompanied

by a proof of service. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the court for 1

consideration must be served on defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

As a prisoner proceeding pro se, petitioner 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 respondents’ attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See

Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c). Because plaintiff failed to properly serve his January 19, 2006

“Application to File Late Motions and Oppositions with Good Cause” on defendants, it will be

stricken from the record. 

Plaintiff has filed two requests for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for

production of witnesses at trial. Plaintiff has also, in accordance with the scheduling order, filed

a pretrial statement. As a motion for summary judgment is pending in this case, the court will

not order production of incarcerated witnesses at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s applications

for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for production of witnesses is denied without

prejudice to renewal at a later time in the proceedings. 

Plaintiff has requested that defendants produce the deposition transcript from

plaintiff’s deposition on October 27, 2005. This request was not accompanied by a proof of

service. As discussed above, all documents submitted to the court for consideration must be

served on defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for production of the deposition transcript

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 54 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 4
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

The court notes that, on February 9, 2006, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s 2

request for an order directing defendants to provide him a copy of his transcript. Defendants’

opposition points out that, in filing their motion for summary judgment, defendants did not

reference plaintiff’s deposition transcript. 

3

from October 27, 2006 is stricken from the record.2

Defendants have filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s surreply to defendants’ reply

to plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Neither the Local Rules

nor the Federal Rules provide for a surreply and the court has not ordered one. Accordingly, the

court grants defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s surreply will be stricken from the record. 

Finally, in light of the pending motions for summary judgment, the court vacates

the July 26, 2006 scheduled trial date. All other dates in the scheduling order remain the same. 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “Application to File Late Motions and Oppositions with Good

Cause” (doc. 44) is stricken from the record;

2. Plaintiff’s two motions titled “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad

Testificandum for Witness(s) at Trial” (docs. 46 and 52) are denied without prejudice to renewal

at a later time in the proceedings;

3. Plaintiff’s “Request that Defendants Produce the Deposition Transcripts which

was Taken on October 27th 2005...”(doc. 48) is stricken from the record;

4. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s surreply (doc. 51) is granted and

plaintiff’s surreply (doc. 49) is stricken from the record and;

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 54 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

5. The July 26, 2006 scheduled trial date is vacated. All other dates in the

scheduling order remain the same. 

DATED: March 28, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 54 Filed 03/29/06 Page 4 of 4