Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01198-5/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

 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to dismiss the second defendant in this case, O’Brian. 1

Doc. 24. Defendant O’Brian has not opposed the motion to dismiss.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE AVERY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1198 GGH P

vs.

K. POOL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Discovery closed in this case on April 16, 2010 and defendant timely filed a motion for

summary judgment on June 9, 2010. While discovery was open, plaintiff filed two motions to

extend discovery which the court denied as plaintiff had not provided enough support on why

discovery needed to be extended or what documents he sought to obtain. On May 25, 2010,

plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 25) for court ordered subpoenas to obtain documents allegedly not 

in possession of the sole defendant in this case and plaintiff provided sufficient detail for the 1

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:09-cv-01198-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 06/15/10 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

 The court notes that the discovery currently sought is a slightly abbreviated list that 2

plaintiff indicated in his February 24, 2010, request for production of documents. Doc. 19.

2

documents he sought to obtain.2

After reviewing plaintiff’s request, and mindful of plaintiff’s pro se status, the

court construes the instant motion as a motion to compel, that will be deemed timely filed. 

Based on plaintiff’s motion it appears that defendant Pool did not provide the requested

documents stating they were not in his possession. Plaintiff sets forth 5 different document

requests. The court notes that most of plaintiff’s requests appear reasonable and rather routine as

they are quite specific and related to this case. Moreover, plaintiff requests various documents

related to his inmate appeals. The defendant in this case is the appeals coordinator at the facility

where plaintiff is incarcerated, so perhaps while not specifically in his possession, many of these

documents may be easily accessible to defendant. In addition, the defendant is being sued in his

individual and official capacity.

Thus, the court will direct defendant Pool to respond in fourteen days to plaintiff’s

request in his May 25, 2010 motion, that the court construes as a motion to compel production of

the documents in pages six to eight of that motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss O’Brian (Doc. 24) is granted, and O’Brian is

dismissed from this action.

2. Within fourteen days, defendant Pool shall respond to what the court has

construed as plaintiff’s motion to compel the documents set forth in his May 25, 2010 motion.

DATED: June 14, 2010 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH: AB

aver1198.mtc

Case 2:09-cv-01198-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2