Richard Odell v. Xu/Tzue, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 20, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-04306
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD ODELL, Case No. 25-cv-04306-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 20, 22 10 XU/TZUE, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 14 defendants were served and directed to file a dispositive motion, or notice that none will be filed. 15 This order resolves plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 20) and a request for 16 defendants to produce documents (Dkt. No. 22). 17 Preliminary Injunction 18 This case concerns plaintiff’s treatment for post COVID-19 syndrome at San Quentin 19 Rehabilitation Center by two doctors at that facility. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the 20 California Medical Facility. The motion for a preliminary injunction asks the Court to order 21 several doctors at California Medical Facility to provide certain treatments for plaintiff. None of 22 the doctors are defendants in this case, and so none have been served with a complaint or 23 otherwise made a party subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. All of the doctors are located in the 24 Eastern District of California. 25 A federal district court may issue injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction over 26 the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti 27 Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (a person “becomes a party officially, and is 1 measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to defend.”). The court may 2 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727-28 3 (9th Cir. 1983). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the 4 parties to the action,” their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other 5 persons who are in active concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 6 Consequently, an injunction is denied. Plaintiff was already advised that he must file a 7 case in the Eastern District to address the medical care he received at facilities in that district. He 8 may seek relief for these claims in the Eastern District, and not in this Court. No further filings 9 along these lines will be accepted. 10 Discovery 11 Plaintiff filed discovery requests for defendants. Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff is advised that the 12 Court generally is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is 13 a dispute between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses 14 normally are exchanged between the parties without any copy sent to the court. See Fed. R. Civ. 15 P. 5(d) (listing discovery requests and responses that “must not” be filed with the court until they 16 are used in the proceeding or the court orders otherwise). Only when the parties have a discovery 17 dispute that they cannot resolve among themselves should the parties even consider asking the 18 court to intervene in the discovery process. The Court does not have the resources to oversee all 19 discovery, and so requires that the parties present to it only their very specific disagreements. 20 To promote the goal of addressing only very specific disagreements (rather than becoming 21 an overseer of all discovery), the Court requires that the parties meet and confer to try to resolve 22 their disagreements before seeking court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); N.D. Cal. Local 23 Rule 37. Where, as here, one of the parties is a prisoner, the Court does not require in-person 24 meetings and instead allows the prisoner and defense counsel to meet and confer by telephone or 25 exchange of letters. Although the format of the meet-and-confer process changes, the substance of 26 the rule remains the same: the parties must engage in a good faith effort to meet and confer before 27 seeking court intervention in any discovery dispute. If defendants will not provide the requested 1 The letter should state the specific discovery he seeks, and state the reasons that plaintiff believes 2 || he is entitled to such discovery. 3 Plaintiff's filing lists the discovery he seeks from defendants. Defendants should respond 4 || to plaintiff's discovery requests and the parties will follow the process set forth above. 5 CONCLUSION 6 The motion for a preliminary injunction and the request for discovery are denied. 7 || Defendants will respond to plaintiffs discovery requests as noted above. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 20, 2026 10 11 JAMES ATO 12 United Sates District Judge

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28