Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00369/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00369-17/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND MCCOWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MCKEOWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-0369-DAD-CKD-P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer in this civil rights action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 6, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to compel additional 

discovery from defendants. ECF No. 66 at 4; see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)

(establishing prison mailbox rule). Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on July 2, 2024. 

ECF No. 68. For the reasons explained below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

In his motion, plaintiff seeks a court order compelling defendants to supplement their 

responses to his request for production of documents. ECF No. 66. In addition, plaintiff seeks to 

depose all five defendants in this case without establishing that he has the necessary funds to pay 

for the requested depositions. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff attached his request for production of 

documents to defendants as well as purported notices for defendants’ depositions. Id. The 

motion to compel does not explain why it was filed months after the discovery deadline in this 

case.

Case 2:21-cv-00369-DAD-CKD Document 81 Filed 12/23/24 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

27

28

2

In opposition, defendants point out that plaintiff’s discovery requests as well as his motion 

to compel were all filed after the discovery deadline in this case had passed. Therefore, they are 

untimely. Even addressing the merits of the motion to compel, defendants contend that their 

objection to plaintiff’s request for production of documents was appropriate and that plaintiff 

does not demonstrate his ability to pay for defendants’ depositions. ECF No. 68. Defendants 

attached their complete response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents. ECF No. 68 

at 6-9.

According to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order in this case, the parties were to 

serve all discovery requests by November 17, 2023. ECF No. 56 at 5. The deadline for 

completing discovery was set as January 16, 2024. ECF No. 56 at 5. This same order explained 

that any necessary motions to compel were required to be filed by January 16, 2024. Id. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was untimely as discovery closed five months before it was 

filed even utilizing the prison mailbox rule. For this reason, the court denies the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 66) 

is denied as untimely.

Dated: December 23, 2024

12/mcco0369.m2compel.untimely

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00369-DAD-CKD Document 81 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2