Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01769/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01769-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE CARR,

Plaintiff,

v.

TED PRUITT,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING 

DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 49)

Plaintiff Claude Carr is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against 

Defendant Ted Pruitt for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 

14.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery, filed 

and served pursuant to the prison mailbox rule on December 8, 2019 and docketed on December 

12, 2019. (ECF No. 49.) In his motion, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling 

Defendant to provide Plaintiff with initial responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and 

Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff states that, even though he 

submitted the interrogatories and requests for documents to Defendant on or about October 16, 

2019, he has not received any answers from Defendant. (Id.)

On January 10, 2020, the Court ordered Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion 

Case 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB Document 53 Filed 02/18/20 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

for an order compelling discovery within fourteen days from the date of service of the order. 

(ECF No. 50.)

On January 23, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for an order 

compelling discovery. (ECF No. 51.) In his opposition, Defendant states that he received 

Plaintiff’s discovery requests on October 25, 2019 and served his responses to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests, including responsive documents, on December 5, 2019. (Id. at 2, 9, 13.) 

The Court’s January 10, 2020 order directed Plaintiff not to file a reply absent further 

order from the Court. The Court has determined that no reply from Plaintiff is necessary. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery is submitted for decision. Local 

Rule 230(l).

Here, Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to provide responses to the 

discovery requests that Plaintiff served on Defendant “on or about October 16, 2019,” because 

Plaintiff had not received any discovery responses from Defendant as of December 8, 2019. 

(ECF No. 49.) However, Defendant has provided the Court with evidence demonstrating that his 

responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests were served on Plaintiff on December 5, 2019. (ECF 

No. 51, at 9, 13.) Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant 

to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests crossed in the mail. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling 

discovery, (ECF No. 49), is HEREBY DENIED as Defendant has already responded and is hence 

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01769-DAD-SAB Document 53 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2