Opinion
1:20-cv-00291-JLT-CDB (PC)
05-12-2023
JOHN M. NIETO, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN GORDON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH DISTRICT JUDGE OR ORAL ARGUMENT
(DOC. 71)
Plaintiff John M. Nieto is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pleading requesting a meeting with the District Judge “for communication to figure out more written legal document corresponds [sic].” (Doc. 71.) A letter to a judge or the Court is improper, as is an ex parte meeting to discuss a pending motion and related filings. The Court liberally construes this pro se filing as a motion for oral argument on Defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52), the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations (Doc. 66), and Plaintiff's objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. 68).
Local Rule 230 provides: ( l) Motions in Prisoner Actions. All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in actions wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” L.R. 230(l) (alteration in original). Defendants' motion and all related pleadings-including Plaintiff s objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. 68)- are currently under advisement. Oral argument is unnecessary for the Court's consideration and decision.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for a meeting with the District Judge or oral argument (Doc. 71) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.