Carpenter v. Sullivan, et al.
Filing
159
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 11/3/2011 denying as duplicative 125 Motion to Compel. (Lundstrom, T)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIE LEE CARPENTER,
CASE NO.: 1:07-cv-00114-AWI-GBC (PC)
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,
15
ORDER DENYING AS DUPLICATIVE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. 125)
Defendants.
______________________________________/
16
17
Plaintiff Willie Lee Carpenter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 22, 2007. This action is proceeding on
19
Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 17), filed on September 17, 2008, against Defendants A. Pfeil,
20
J. Gonzalez, J. Barajas, Ortiz, A. Salazar, J. Martinez, Litton. (Docs. 21, 34, 44, 60, 65, 66).1 On
21
January 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 98). On June 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a
22
renewed motion to compel that is substantively the same as the one filed on January 24, 2011 (Doc. 98).
23
(Doc. 125). On October 27, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s January 24, 2011, motion to compel with
24
leave to amend. (Doc. 152).
25
Plaintiff was advised on how to correct the deficiencies of his motion to compel in the Court’s
26
order filed on October 27, 2011. (Doc. 152). Given that Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed June 6, 2011,
27
28
1
Defendants Sullivan, Evans and Carrasco were dismissed March 28, 2011. (Doc. 110).
1
1
is substantively the same as the one recently addressed by the Court, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
2
motion to compel filed on June 6, 2011, as duplicative. (Doc. 125).
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated:
0jh02o
November 3, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
