Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES, SET 

TWO, AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, 

SET ONE, AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 46)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding 

against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia, 

and Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution. 

On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel.1Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).

Defendants filed an opposition on September 3, 2013. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff seeks to compel a response to his interrogatories, set two, and requests for 

admission, set one. Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that they timely served their 

responses on August 21, 2013.

///

 

1

Plaintiff also filed a fourth motion to compel on September 16, 2013, and two “Pitchess” motions on September 9, 

2013, and September 30, 2013. Those motions have not yet been submitted under Local Rule 230(l). 

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 58 Filed 10/03/13 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

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order, parties have forty-five days from the date 

of service of discovery requests within which to respond. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 6(d) provides for three days for mailing. Plaintiff failed to provide a proof of service by 

mail, as is required, but assuming arguendo that his discovery requests were served by mail on the 

same day he dated them, which was July 18, 2013, Defendants had until September 5, 2013, to 

serve their responses by mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d); Discovery/Scheduling Order, ¶2.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was prematurely filed on August 23, 2013, and it is, therefore, 

HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 58 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 2