Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00986-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

M. KNOWLES, et al., )

)

 )

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-00986-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 77.)

I. BACKGROUND

Valentine E. Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on July 17, 2008. 

(Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original complaint, against Defendants Northcutt and Martin

for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment; and against Defendants Northcutt, Martin, Caviness,

Lantz, Trujillo, Truitt, and Fambrough for use of excessive force physical force, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment.1

The Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order on March 18, 2010, commencing the discovery

phase in this action and establishing a deadline of November 18, 2010 for completion of discovery,

All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the Court on October 21, 2009, based on Plaintiff’s failure to

1

state a claim. (Doc. 31.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 95 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 3
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

including motions to compel. (Doc. 41.) On July 21, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and

a motion for extension of time to respond to discovery. (Docs. 54, 55.) On September 15, 2010, the

Court granted Defendants'motion for extension of time and extended the discoverydeadline to February

28, 2011 for all parties to this action. (Doc. 58.) On December 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to

compel Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories. (Doc. 77.)

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party propounding discovery

may seek an order compelling disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided

evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(3). 

Plaintiff asserts that he served his First Set of Interrogatories on Defendants on June 29, 2010. 

Motion, Doc. 77 at 2:3-6. On September 15, 2010, the Court granted Defendants an extension of time

to respond to discovery, and on October 4, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants' counsel requesting

Defendants' responses to interrogatories, reminding them that they had forty-five days to respond. Id.

at 2:11-27. As of December 23, 2010, Plaintiff had not received any response to the letter or to the

interrogatories. Id. at 3:4-8. Plaintiff then filed the present motion to compel on December 30, 2010. 

Id.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion to compel is premature, because the Court's order of

September 15, 2010, granted Defendants an extension of time to respond to discovery until forty-five

days after the Court had ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Opp'n, Doc. 80 at 1:19-25. As of

January 13, 2011, the Court had not ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Id. at 2:2-3.

Indeed, the Court's order of September 15, 2010 granted Defendants an extension of time to

respond to discovery until forty-five days after the Court had ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 58 at 2:19-21.) The Court ruled on Defendants' motion to dismiss on April 1, 2011. (Doc. 88.) 

Therefore, Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories were not due until forty-five days after

April 1, 2011, and Plaintiff's motion to compel of December 30, 2010, is premature and shall be denied

as such.

///

2

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 95 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 3
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

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed on

December 30, 2010, is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-00986-BAM Document 95 Filed 05/23/11 Page 3 of 3