Heilman v. Cherniss

Full title: THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, Plaintiff, v. C. CHERNISS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 5, 2015

2:11-cv-0042-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)

Opinion

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, Plaintiff, v. C. CHERNISS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-0042-JAM-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 5, 2015

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order to prison officials to allow him to communicate with his incarcerated witnesses prior to the trial scheduled to begin on March 23, 2015. ECF No. 144. Plaintiff declares that officials "have failed to process" the requests he has submitted to correspond with his witnesses Oliver Overton and Daniel Patillo. Defendants have not yet responded to the motion.

         It is hereby ORDERED that defendants shall coordinate with CDCR counsel and inquire as to the status of plaintiff's requests to correspond with his inmate witnesses prior to trial. Defendants shall inform the court by March 10, 2015 of:

         a. the status of plaintiff's requests for correspondence; and

         b. if plaintiff's requests have been denied, the reasons for the denial.

         So ordered.