Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01811/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01811-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bowman
Defendant
Burn
Defendant
Fernandez
Defendant
M. Gosling
Defendant
Helmer
Defendant
John E. James
Plaintiff
Donald C. Pompan
Defendant
Rankin
Defendant
Thor
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN E. JAMES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD C. POMPAN, M.D., ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1811 JSW (PR)

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING

MOTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE CLERK

(Docket nos. 40, 41, 43, 44)

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Calipatria State

Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. In an order dated February 17, 2005,

Magistrate Judge Beck found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims for relief against

Defendants at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's

serious medical needs. On April 20, 2005, Eastern District Judge Ishi adopted the findings and

recommendations in full and transferred the case to this Court. The case was received in this

district on May 2, 2005. 

On December 23, 2005, this Court ordered service of these claims on Defendants

Pompan, Bowman, Helmer, Thor, M. Golin, Burn, Fernandez, Hernandez and Rankin (docket

no. 5). Thereafter, after service could not be affected on several of the named Defendants,

Plaintiff was ordered to provide the Court with sufficient identifying information (including a

properly spelled last name and first initial) as to Defendants Burn, Golin and Hernandez, so

that the Marshal could attempt service on them. Plaintiff has since informed the Court that

Defendant Golin has now been properly identified as M. Gosling. As such, the Clerk shall

reissue a summons and the U.S. Marshal shall again attempt service on Defendant M. Gosling

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 47 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

Additionally, on October 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of

thirty days in which to provide the required identifying information to the Court (docket no.

40), which is now GRANTED. Plaintiff is provided with an additional sixty days in which to

provide this information to the Court. Failure to do so within that time will result in the

dismissal of the remaining unserved Defendants without prejudice. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d

1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994).

Plaintiff has also filed two motions seeking discovery of certain information from

Defendants (docket nos. 41, 44). However, Plaintiff is reminded that discovery is generally

undertaken between the parties without court intervention, under Rules 26-37 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery matters are to be served on the parties, but not filed with

the Court, except as provided by court order or under Rule 37. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a); 37. 

To the extent that Plaintiff’s motions seek to compel discovery, the motions are DENIED

without prejudice for failure to comply with the meet-and-confer requirement of Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 37( a) and Local Rule 37-1 (docket nos. 41, 44). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)

(motion to compel must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the

disclosure without court action); N D Cal Local Rule 37-1 ( same). Before attempting to

compel discovery, Plaintiff must first seek the information through discovery under Rule 26.

Further, the document Petitioner filed in this Court as docket number 43 on November

3, 2006, entitled “motion requesting notice of amended petition” is not in the Court file. 

Plaintiff is directed to re-file with the Court a copy of that document, if he wishes it to be

considered by the Court, as the original filing cannot be located. This order TERMINATES

all pending motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 47 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

POMPAN et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-01811 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 14, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Christopher Michael Young

Attorney General

Department of Justice

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

John E. James

P.O. Box 5002

P13474

Calipatria, CA 92233

Dated: June 14, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01811-JSW Document 47 Filed 06/14/07 Page 3 of 3