Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01427/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01427-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Dewayne Bearden
Plaintiff
Lee
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

The Court notes that this is a persistent problem with plaintiff’s filings. Plaintiff did

not serve his opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion upon defendant, as he was

ordered to do, and the Court had to order him to do so for a second time on March 31, 2006. 

Any future filings by plaintiff that are not served upon defendant will be STRICKEN and not

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY DEWAYNE BEARDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER LEE,

Defendant. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-1427 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS REGARDING MAIL

(Docket Nos. 39, 40, 41)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison

(“Corcoran”), filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a

medical officer at Salinas Valley State Prison (where plaintiff was formerly housed) failed to

provide him with adequate medical treatment. The Court found plaintiff’s claim, when

liberally construed, to be cognizable, and ordered the complaint served upon defendant. 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which is now pending. 

Now before the Court are three motions filed by plaintiff: (1) “Motion: Requesting

Order For All Mail Sent From the Northern District Court To Be Given To Plaintiff,” filed

August 7, 2006; (2) “Motion: Court ot Summon 119 Mail Card,” filed August 10, 2006; and

(3) “Motion: For Order That S.A.T.F./Prison Release to the Court Plaintiff’s 119 Mail Card,”

filed August 14, 2006. Said motions will be denied for the reason that plaintiff has failed to

serve them upon defendant.1

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) (requiring all motions, other than those

Case 3:05-cv-01427-MMC Document 45 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 considered by the Court, unless it is a motion that may be heard ex parte.

2

which may be heard ex parte, to be served on all parties). Moreover, in said motions,

plaintiff complains that he has not received any mail from this Court since May 2006, and

consequently seeks to have the Court order Corcoran officials to provide him such mail, as

well as his “mail card” upon which his mail is recorded; plaintiff has not been sent any mail

from this Court since May 2006. Finally, Corcoran officials are not subject to orders in this

matter as they are not parties hereto. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions are hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 39, 40 and 41.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01427-MMC Document 45 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2