Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02511/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02511-10/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 

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ BERNAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-2511 AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 46. 

According to the motion to compel, which was filed on January 29, 2020,1

 plaintiff sent 

seven requests for admission to defendant Weeks “on or about the 22nd of December.” ECF No. 

46 at 2. Weeks responded to each of plaintiff’s requests for admission by objecting that the 

requests were untimely. Id. at 2-5. Plaintiff seeks to compel Weeks to respond to his requests for 

admission. Id. As addressed below, both the requests and the motion are untimely, and the 

motion will therefore be denied. 

//// 

 

1

 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 

rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court 

document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for 

mailing). 

Case 2:16-cv-02511-DAD-AC Document 47 Filed 02/14/20 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 

On October 15, 2018, a discovery and scheduling order was issued in this case as to 

defendant Weeks.2 ECF No. 17 at 1, 5. The order provided that 

[t]he parties may conduct discovery until February 1, 2019. Any 

motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by February 

1, 2019. All requests for discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 31 (deposition by written question), 33 (interrogatories), 

34 (production of documents), or 36 (admissions) shall be served no 

later than December 3, 2019. 

Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). 

The order clearly contained a typographical error and should have stated that requests for 

discovery were to be served no later than December 3, 2018.

3

 However, even if plaintiff 

mistakenly believed that the deadline for requests for admission was December 3, 2019, he 

allowed this deadline to pass before he sent his requests for admission nearly three weeks later. 

Plaintiff's motion to compel was also untimely, as it was filed nearly one year after the deadline 

for doing so had passed. Plaintiff appears to rely in part on the court’s December 17, 2019 order 

vacating the December 27, 2019 pretrial order deadline as justification for his late discovery and 

motion. See ECF No. 46 at 2. However, that order is inapplicable because the deadline was for 

summary-judgment motions between plaintiff and defendant Arana, not for discovery and 

discovery related motions between plaintiff and defendant Weeks. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 46, 

is DENIED. 

DATED: February 13, 2020 

 

2

 A separate discovery and scheduling order was issued as to defendant Arana. ECF No. 35. 

3

 It would be impossible for discovery to close in February 2019 if parties could continue to 

request discovery for months after until December 2019. 

Case 2:16-cv-02511-DAD-AC Document 47 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 2