Baughman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SIDNEY PETILLO, No. 2:19-CV-0667-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER HAINEY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion of notice of deposition discovery of evidence.” ECF No. 58. Plaintiff’s motion is incoherent and does not clearly identify any grounds for relief. Id. Plaintiff also does not clearly identify what relief he is seeking other than stating the Court should hold Defendants in default. Id. Instead, Plaintiff cites a litany of state and federal procedural rules and California state regulations and provides a “summary of notice of employee misconduct.” Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff does, however, state that the Defendants had 14 days from September 28, 2020 to take some action but apparently did not do so because Plaintiff did not sign a legal notice until October 8, 2020. Id. What…