Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01104/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01104-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA ALLEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:05-CV-01104-OWW -NEW

(WMW) 

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

RULING REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

[Doc. 173]

The history of this matter is set out in detail in District Judge Oliver Wanger’s order entered

March 20, 2007 (Doc. 161). Essentially, on December 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

further production of documents. On January 30, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued an order

compelling further production of documents by Defendants. On February 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration (Doc. 142), which District Judge Oliver Wanger resolved in his order of

March 20, 2007.

On May 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and

Notice of Recent Orders Issued in Estate of Gonzalez v. Hickman,” in which she states that she

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 175 Filed 05/30/07 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

believes that her motion to compel is still pending before the court. Based on this belief, Plaintiff

requests a ruling on the sufficiency of Defendants’ responses to District Judge Wanger’s order of

March 20, 2007.

Plaintiff is mistaken. Plaintiff’s motion to compel was finally resolved by District Judge

Wanger’s order on the motion for reconsideration, and is no longer pending before the court. 

Accordingly, should Plaintiff wish to challenge Defendants’ responses to the order of March 20,

2007, she must do so by separate motion.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for a ruling is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01104-OWW -GSA Document 175 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2