Opinion
No. 2: 10-cv-1848 MCE KJN P.
April 26, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are three motions filed by plaintiff.
On March 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for a writ of mandamus. In this motion, plaintiff alleges that he was recently transferred to California State Prison-Corcoran ("Corcoran"). Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at Corcoran have violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting Corcoran prison officials from violating his constitutional rights.
No defendants are located at Corcoran. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for a writ of mandate is denied.
In the motion for writ of mandate, plaintiff alleges that he was recently transferred to Corcoran and is being denied access to his legal property. Plaintiff's recent filings suggest that he now has access to his legal property. After reviewing plaintiff's entire motion, the undersigned does not find that use of the All Writs Act to order Corcoran prison officials to respond to plaintiff's allegations is warranted.
On March 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to file a supplemental claim. Plaintiff's proposed supplemental complaint, attached to his motion, appears to include only the claims the court found colorable against defendants. In other words, the proposed supplemental complaint contains no supplemental claims. Because it is unclear how plaintiff is attempting to supplement his complaint, this motion is denied.
On March 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to respond to his request for production of documents. In their opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff's motion should be denied because a response to plaintiff's request for production of documents is not yet due. Defendants state that plaintiff served his request on March 7, 2011. Pursuant to the January 21, 2011 discovery and scheduling order, discovery responses are due forty-five days after the request is served. Defendants correctly state that their response to plaintiff's request for production of documents is due on April 21, 2011.
Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied because it was filed before defendants' response was due.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a writ of mandate (Dkt. No. 45) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental claim (Dkt. No. 47) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 48) is denied.
DATED: April 25, 2011