1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD DAVID JONES, No. 2:22-CV-0639-DJC-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARIANA LOTERSTEIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. Pending before the Court are motions filed by Plaintiff. See ECF Nos. 36, 38, 19 42, and 49.1 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion which has been docketed as “Motion for Production of 21 Transcripts.” ECF No. 36. The motion is filed on what appears to be a state court form for 22 requesting transcripts. See

. On this form, Plaintiff has checked boxes suggesting he is 23 requesting Clerk’s Transcripts, trial attorney case files, prosecution case files and discovery, and 24 documents related to sentencing proceedings. See

Elsewhere in the filing, Plaintiff seems to 25 be attaching discovery requests which may or may not have been served on Defendants. See

26 at 8-21. In the proof of service associated with Plaintiff’s filing, Plaintiff states that he is serving 27 1 Other pending motions filed by Plaintiff, ECF Nos. 59, 60, 63, and 65, will be addressed 28 separately. 1 his “Production of Medical Records Documents. . . . R. 34 Discovery Motion (Medical Records); 2 Plaintiff Request Admissions to Staffers. . . .”

. To the extent Plaintiff’s motion concerns 3 the sufficiency of Defendants’ responses to discovery requests, Plaintiff has not provided the 4 Court with Defendants’ responses. 5 Plaintiff has also filed a motion which has been docketed as “Motion to Compel.” 6 ECF No. 38. As with Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 36, the precise nature of the relief requested 7 is uncertain. The motion appears to seek discovery from Plaintiff’s central file, but the motion 8 does not describe any particular discovery requests or response thereto. Nor has Plaintiff 9 provided the Court with copies of any discovery requests or responses. 10 Given that the Court cannot discern any relief requested in these motions, they will 11 be denied. 12 Next, Plaintiff has filed a motion docketed as “Motion to Certify Class.” ECF No. 13 42. Plaintiff seeks an order referring this case to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). See

14 Prior to Plaintiff’s motion being filed, the matter was sua sponte referred for a settlement 15 conference under the Court’s Early ADR Program. See ECF No. 41. After Plaintiff’s motion 16 was filed, Defendants filed a motion to opt-out of participation in the Early ADR Program, see 17 ECF No. 46, which the Court granted, see ECF No. 48. Given that Defendants have not 18 consented to participation in settlement negotiations, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without 19 prejudice to renewal as a joint request of the parties. 20 Finaly, currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 49. As with 21 Plaintiff’s other motions, the nature of the relief requested is not apparent. As best the Court can 22 discern, Plaintiff appears to seek conditional class certification for this action. See

This 23 motion will be denied because a pro se litigant cannot appear in a civil action as representative of 24 a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 25 2008). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. Plaintiff's motions at ECF Nos. 36 and 38 are DENIED for failure to 3 || articulate a request for relief. 4 2. Plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 42 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal 5 || as a joint request of the parties for referral of the matter to alternative dispute resolution. 6 3. Plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 49 seeking class certification is DENIED. 7 8 || Dated: August 12, 2025 Ss..c0_, ? DENNIS M. COTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28