Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02415/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02415-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2415 RRB KJM P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. §1982. On January 2, 2008, he filed a motion for an extension of time in which to

conduct discovery. He contends that he is corresponding with defendants’ counsel concerning

defendants’ responses to discovery, which plaintiff considers inadequate. He adds that he

wishes to pursue additional requests for admissions.

Plaintiff has not explained, however, why he did not serve his requests for

admissions during the additional time granted by the court in response to plaintiff’s initial

motion for additional time to conduct discovery. Moreover, although plaintiff is apparently

attempting to confer with defendants about discovery issues, this does not excuse his failure to

proceed with discovery: the court’s June 26, 2007 discovery order specifically exempted this

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 95 Filed 02/01/08 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

case from the meet and confer provisions of the local rules. L.R. 37-251. Plaintiff will be given

additional time, however, in which to file any motions to compel discovery.

Finally, plaintiff alleges his copy of the complaint was seized by two prison

guards and asks the court to provide a copy of the complaint without requiring that he pay the

copying fees. A litigant’s in forma pauperis status does not extend to exempt him from the

incidental expenses of litigation. See, e.g. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Nevertheless, because the litigation may be delayed if plaintiff is denied access to his complaint,

the court will direct the clerk to provide plaintiff with a copy. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to conduct discovery

(docket no. 92) is denied;

2. Plaintiff is given until February 8, 2007 in which to file any motions to compel

discovery; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for a copy of his complaint (docket no. 92) is granted and

the Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of his amended complaint, filed

December 27, 2004. 

DATED: January 31, 2008. 

2

chat2515.eot+

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 95 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2