Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05248/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05248-5/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

MICHAEL WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O P. DOAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5248-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 29)

Plaintiff Michael Walters (“plaintiff”) 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 is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 7, 2004, against defendants Doan and Desimas

(“defendants”) for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. On February 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Defendants filed an

opposition on February 6, 2006.

Plaintiff’s motion consists of one sentence requesting a court order compelling the production

a copy of his entire central file. Plaintiff’s motion is fatally deficient. There is no indication that

prior to filing the instant motion, plaintiff served defendants with a request for the production of

documents. Indeed, in their opposition defendants represent that plaintiff did not serve such

discovery request on them. Even if plaintiff had first served a request for the production of

documents, a motion to compel would be premature until such time as plaintiff attempted to resolve

any dispute over defendants’ response with them. This requirement is set forth in paragraph 5 of the

court’s discovery and scheduling order. 

Case 1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 03/23/06 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

1

 The court notes that the discovery phase of this litigation concluded on January 17, 2006, pursuant to the

court’s order of November 17, 2005.

2

A motion to compel is not a vehicle by which to obtain discovery in the first instance. A

motion to compel should only be filed after a dispute arises between the parties over discovery they

have conducted between themselves and attempts to resolve the dispute(s) prior to involving the

court were unsuccessful.

1

For the reasons set forth in this order, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed February 3, 2006,

is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05248-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2