Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02291/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02291-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEVON D. GRAHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2291 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER 

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff submits a copy of defendants’ responses to his requests for production of

documents with the general complaint that defendants have failed to cooperate with plaintiff’s

discovery requests for relevant documents. Docket # 30, “Amended Motion to Modify

Scheduling Order and Extend Discovery Cut-off Date,” p. 1. In an Order, filed on March 4, 2010

(Docket # 29), this court denied plaintiff’s earlier request for a modification of the discovery

deadline and to limit the response time to 30, rather than 45, days because plaintiff failed to make

the requisite showing of good cause for this court to modify the current deadlines. 

To the extent that this amended motion is a request to extend the discovery

deadline, which, according to the Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on October 9, 2009

(Docket #24), was March 5, 2010, (with an impending June 30, 2010, pretrial dispositive motion

Case 2:07-cv-02291-CKD Document 31 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

deadline), that request is denied as untimely. To the extent that the amended motion could be

construed as a motion to compel further production from defendants in response to plaintiff’s

requests for production of documents, that motion fails both as untimely and because it lacks the

required specificity. It is not enough simply to produce all the responses without identifying

which responses/production are at issue. This court’s review of the requests and responses

indicates that defendants have stated that as to some requests defendants do not have responsive

documents within their custody, possession or control. As to other requests, although defendants

have interposed objections in their responses, they nevertheless indicate they have attached

documents in response. As to still others, defendants state that they will make an internal

investigation report and two videotapes relating to the December 20, 2001, cell extraction at

issue available for plaintiff’s review. The court is unable to discern what is at issue because

plaintiff fails to identify which responses he finds deficient or unsatisfactory and the basis for his

dissatisfaction. Nor can the court act as counsel for plaintiff and formulate his belated motion for

him. 

Notwithstanding the above, defendants shall act in conformance with their

statements regarding the investigation report and videotapes. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended motion, filed on March

17, 2010 (Docket # 30), for a modification of the discovery deadline or construed as a motion to

compel, is denied as supplemented above.

DATED: March 25, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

grah2291.ord4

Case 2:07-cv-02291-CKD Document 31 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 2