Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01628-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES AUSTIN PARKS,

Plaintiff, 1: 08 CV 01628 LJO YNP SMS (PC) 

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 29)

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on

February 5, 2010. 

Plaintiff has filed a document styled as a motion to compel Defendants to provide further

answers to his discovery requests. Plaintiff specifically seeks an order compelling Defendants

Braswell, Young, Hien, Pighting, Alexander and John Doe “to serve verified responses with out

objections to Plaintiff’s demand for production of documents set (1) one.” Defendants have

opposed the motion.

Plaintiff contends that on October 15, 2009, he served Defendants with a request for

production of documents “that consisted of 20 clear and concise requests for documents.”

Plaintiff attaches his request as an exhibit to his motion. In his motion, Plaintiff appears to make

1

Case 1:08-cv-01628-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/01/10 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

arguments regarding Defendants’ objections. Plaintiff does not, however, specify the particular

request at issue. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), and Local Rules 33-250(c)

and 36-250(c), Plaintiff must set forth in his motion each interrogatory and the response at issue. 

Defendants note that Plaintiff’s motion does not identify what type of discovery requests are at

issue. Plaintiff accuses defense counsel of acting in bad faith and failing to fulfill Defendants’

discovery obligations. 

Plaintiff makes no showing that Defendants have refused to answer his requests. Plaintiff

appears to challenge objections asserted by Defendants. Defendants have fulfilled their

discovery obligations. If plaintiff seeks to challenge a particular objection, he must include with

his motion the discovery request, the specific objection, and an argument as to why the objection

should be overruled. Plaintiff has failed to do so here, and the motion should therefore be

denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on

February 5, 2010, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01628-LJO -SMS Document 33 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2