From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Nangalama

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 19, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P

09-19-2011

DEWAYNE G. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. NANGALAMA, et al., Defendants.


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.

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Thomas v. Nangalama

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 19, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 19, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1295 JAM EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)