Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06624-14/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SY LEE CASTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06624-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

(Doc. 76)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SECOND

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS TO EXTENT A RESPONSE

HAS BEEN SERVED AND THE MOTION IS

MOOT

(Doc. 69)

Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel a

response to his request for the production of documents, set two. (Docs. 68, 69.) In as much as the

court extended the discovery deadline to January 31, 2007, by order filed November 20, 2006,

plaintiff’s motion was timely. (Doc. 70.) Defendant Scribner (“defendant”) filed a motion seeking

an extension of time to file a response on December 5, 2006, and filed an opposition to the motion

to compel on January 4, 2007. (Docs. 76, 83.) Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file

a response shall be granted.

Plaintiff seeks to compel a response to his request for the production of documents, set two,

served on March 1, 2006. Defendant submits evidence that he served a response to the request on

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 86 Filed 01/31/07 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

January 4, 2007. In light of service of a response, plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot to the extent

it seeks a response and shall be denied on that ground. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for an extension

of time to file a response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed December 5, 2006, is GRANTED,

and plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed November 14, 2006, is DENIED as moot in light of the

service of a response to his discovery request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06624-SMS Document 86 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 2