Opinion
1:20-cv-70-AWI-HBK
07-12-2021
RICHARD EVANS, Plaintiff, v. R. MILAN; FNU LEFFMAN; S. SHERMAN, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION FOR INTERVIEW
(Doc. Nos. 39, 51)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a protective order, filed September 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 39, “Protective Motion). Also pending is Plaintiff's one-page letter addressed to “Captain Kuehn (SATF F-Yard)” requesting an interview to discuss the condition of his confinement that was filed as a motion on November 6, 2020. (Doc No. 51 at 1, “Motion for Interview”).
In his Protective Motion, Plaintiff seeks a protective order for himself. (Doc. No. 39 at 1). Without stating any facts, Plaintiff claims he needs protection from the Court because he will be a witness in this case and will be subjected to harassment and retaliation for filing this action because prison officials will want to deter or scare him. (Id.). On August 25, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff's previous motion for protective order explaining the such motion are reserved for discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B).
In the Letter Motion, Plaintiff states he would like an interview with the Captain, “to discuss ‘conditions of confinement' issue on SATF F-Yard.” (See Doc. No. 51). Plaintiff seeks no relief from the Court. (Id.). Although filed as a Motion, the pleading improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). To the extent Plaintiff wishes to raise any concerns with correctional officials, he should follow prison protocols and the administrative grievance procedures and refrain from copying the Court on correspondence with correctional officials.
As set forth in the Court's July 12, 2021 Order, screening under § 1915 remains pending on Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 118 at 1; see also docket). This case remains in the early stages of litigation. (Id.). Service of process has not been directed on any defendants. (See docket).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiffs motion for a protective order (Doc. No. 39) and motion to interview (Doc. No. 51) are DENIED.