Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00355-23/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

The court also determined that the second amended complaint was appropriate for 1

service on defendants Grant and Wiley. On November 22, 2005, the summonses were returned

unexecuted as to defendants Grant and Wiley, and the court has since dismissed these defendants

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLASS W. HYSELL, No. CIV S-04-0355-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

C.K. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on

July 13, 2004. Defendants Woodford, Johnson, Hamad, Carlson, Jackson, Hill, Pliler,

Goldsmith, Rosario, and Hubbard have appeared in the action. 

1

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 109 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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

On June 1, 2006, the court issued an order directing defendants to file a response 2

to plaintiff’s motion. However, at the time that order was issued, defendants’ response – which

was filed on May 31, 2006, had not yet been entered on the court’s docket. Given that

defendants have filed a response, the language in the June 1, 2006, order requiring a response is

moot. 

2

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses

(Doc. 100). Defendants have filed an opposition.2

In his motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that defendants have completely failed

to respond to his request for production of documents. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)

provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a party...fails...to serve answers or objections to interrogatories

submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the

interrogatories, or...to serve a written response to a request for

inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the

request, the court in which the action is pending on motion may

make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among

others it may take any action authorized under subparagraph (A),

(B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. 

Further, the rule provides that the failure to serve timely responses to discovery may not be

excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party so asserting has

a motion for a protective order pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). 

In their response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants state that, in fact, they served

timely responses on May 30, 2006 – the last day to timely serve responses. Because responses

have been timely served, plaintiff’s motion to compel must be denied. Given that plaintiff’s

motion was filed on May 26, 2006 – before responses were even due – it appears that plaintiff’s

motion was simply premature. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 109 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel

discovery responses (Doc. 100) is denied.

DATED: June 2, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00355-FCD-CMK Document 109 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 3