Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01825/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01825-9/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 

DWAYNE GILES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TOM FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-1825-WBS-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 defendants to answer his discovery requests. 

ECF No. 83. Defendants Felker, Nachiondo, and Wong oppose plaintiff’s motion, and defendant 

Roche has not filed any response. ECF Nos. 84, 85. As explained below, plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is denied as moot. 

 The court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint on November 19, 2012, and found 

that it stated cognizable claims against defendants Felker, Nachiondo, Roche, and Wong. ECF 

No. 19. Nachiondo filed an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 10, 2014, ECF No. 

51, and defendants Felker, Roche, and Wong did the same on April 15, 2014, ECF No. 52. 

 On April 21, 2014, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order (“scheduling 

order”). ECF No. 53. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF 

No. 72. On October 7, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s motion and modified the scheduling 

Case 2:11-cv-01825-WBS-EFB Document 87 Filed 11/14/14 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

order. ECF No. 82. The modified scheduling order explains that the parties may conduct 

discovery until December 12, 2014, any motions necessary to compel discovery must be filed by 

that date, and that all requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 must be 

served no later than October 14, 2014. Id. at 4. 

 The day before the court modified the scheduling order, however, plaintiff filed the instant 

motion to compel. ECF No. 83. Because the court had not yet ruled on plaintiff’s motion to 

modify the scheduling order, plaintiff requested that the court rule on that motion or, in the 

alternative, compel defendants to answer his discovery requests. Id. at 2. In their opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants explain that, in light of the modified scheduling order, 

they are withdrawing their objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests as untimely and will respond 

without plaintiff re-serving the requests. ECF No. 84 at 2; ECF No. 85 at 2. Because defendants 

have indicated that they will voluntarily respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, plaintiff’s 

motion to compel is denied as moot.1

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 83) 

is DENIED. 

DATED: November 13, 2014. 

 1

 As noted above, defendant Roche has not filed a response to plaintiff’s motion to 

compel. In the event that Roche does not join Felker, Wong, and Nachiondo in voluntarily 

responding to plaintiff’s discovery requests, plaintiff may file another motion to compel with the 

court. 

Case 2:11-cv-01825-WBS-EFB Document 87 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 2