Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00136-27/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ray Dynes
Plaintiff
Juan Medina
Defendant
David Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JOHN RAY DYNES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O JUAN MEDINA and 

C/O DAVID WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00136-GSA-PC

ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

(Docs. 91, 92, 94, 95, 97.)

I. Background

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff John Ray

Dynes, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at

the Fresno County Jail. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed April

24, 2008, against Defendants Juan Medina and David Williams for use of excessive physical

force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s claim arises from an incident which

occurred while he was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison. This matter is set for jury trial

on April 14, 2010.

Plaintiff filed five self-described motions between February 25, 2010 and March 1, 2010,

concerning pretrial matters. (Docs. 91, 92, 94, 95, 97.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-00136-GSA Document 99 Filed 03/04/10 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

27

28

II. Motion seeking information about pretrial orders (Doc. 91.)

On February 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting information and instructions for

filing a pretrial order. The court finds no good cause to provide such information to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is not required to prepare or file a pretrial order and, in fact, the pretrial order for this

action was filed by the court on March 4, 2010. Therefore, this motion shall be denied. 

III. Motions regarding “argument packet and exhibits” (Docs. 92, 97.)

On February 26, 2010, and again on March 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions for leave to

use his “argument packet and exhibits,” filed on January 26, 2010, as arguments and evidence at

trial. Plaintiff is advised to refer to the court’s pretrial order which governs the claims and

defenses to be tried and the exhibits allowed at trial. These motions are thus resolved.

IV. Motions requesting definitions of legal terms (Docs. 94, 95.)

On February 26, 2010, and again on March 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed motions for the court

to provide him with definitions of various legal terms. These motions shall be denied. Plaintiff

is advised to refer to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California for such information. A

copy of the Local Rules should be available to Plaintiff at the Fresno County Jail where he is

presently incarcerated. 

V. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion seeking information about pretrial orders, filed on February 25,

2010, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motions regarding his “argument packet and exhibits,” filed on

February 26, 2010, and March 1, 2010, are RESOLVED; and

3. Plaintiff’s motions requesting definitions of legal terms, filed on February 26,

2010, and March 1, 2010, are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 4, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00136-GSA Document 99 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2