Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00772/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00772-9/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 

ASHLEY LUTHER MURRAY PRICE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARNES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-0772-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion to compel and a motion for a copy of his deposition 

transcript. ECF No. 38. 

Motion to Compel 

On October 2, 2019, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 34. It 

required that all requests for written discovery be served by December 20, 2019, and that all 

motions to compel be filed no later than February 21, 2020. Id. at 4. 

On May 8, 2020, long after these deadlines expired, plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

defendants to respond to discovery that he had requested in February, 2020. ECF No. 38. As is 

clear from the scheduling order, any requests for written discovery made after December 20, 

2019, were untimely. Moreover, the instant motion to compel, filed months after the February 

21, 2020 deadline, is also untimely. Thus, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. 

Case 2:17-cv-00772-MCE-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/19/20 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 

Plaintiff has neither adhered to nor sought modification of the scheduling order. Parties 

should “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the [ ] course of the litigation.” 

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that diligence here. Although he makes a vague claim that CDCR has been 

“withholding important mail,” it is not clear whether plaintiff is blaming the tardiness of his 

discovery requests and/or motion to compel on this alleged misconduct. 

Motion for Deposition Transcript 

 Plaintiff also complains that he has not received a copy of the transcript from his 

deposition, which was taken in February of 2020. Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, however, plaintiff must first pay for a copy of the deposition transcript, and then 

obtain it from the officer before whom the deposition was taken. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3). 

Neither the court nor the defendants may be forced to bear this cost. Although plaintiff is 

proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, that statute does not authorize the 

expenditure of public funds for deposition transcripts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Tedder v. Odel, 890 

F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“‘[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of 

an indigent litigant] is proper only when authorized by Congress’”) (alteration in original) 

(quoting United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976)). 

Conclusion 

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

a deposition transcript (ECF No. 38) are DENIED. 

DATED: May 19, 2020. 

 

Case 2:17-cv-00772-MCE-EFB Document 42 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2