From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Nangalama

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 20, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P.

September 20, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order on the grounds of "annoyance, oppression and intimidation of an unrepresented prisoner with limited knowledge in responding to discovery requests and procedures." Dckt. No. 24 at 1. On May 23, 2011, defendants opposed plaintiff's motion on the grounds that plaintiff: 1) failed to move timely for a protective order; 2) failed to confer or attempt to confer in good faith with the defendants; and 3) failed to show good cause for the issuance of a protective order. Dckt. No. 25. Defendants also noted it was unclear what plaintiff sought to protect. Id. at 5. On June 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court "strike plaintiff's motion for a protective order." Dckt. No. 27.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike (Dckt. No. 27), construed as a motion to withdraw his motion for a protective order (Dckt. No. 24), is granted.

DATED: September 19, 2011.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Nangalama

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 20, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Thomas v. Nangalama

Case Details

Full title:DEWAYNE G. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. NANGALAMA, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 20, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2011)