Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00342-19/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELROY W. BROWNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00342-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES INCURRED

IN FILING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 51)

Plaintiff Elroy W. Browning (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 19, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion to compel defendant Lopez (“defendant”) to respond to his request for the production of

documents and for the payment of reasonable expenses in the amount of $16.35. (Doc. 41.)

Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel on May 1, 2006, and

plaintiff filed a reply on May 12, 2006. (Docs. 47, 49.) On May 31, 2006, the court issued an order

denying plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to his document request as moot, and ordering

plaintiff to file a declaration setting forth the reasonable expenses he incurred in preparing and filing

the motion to compel within thirty days. (Doc. 51.) On June 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to

the court’s order regarding reasonable expenses. (Doc. 52.) On June 22, 2006, following review of

plaintiff’s response, the court notified plaintiff that he had not filed a declaration and had not

separately set forth the costs incurred, as required by the court in its May 31 order. (Doc. 53.) The

court ordered plaintiff to file a declaration setting forth the costs incurred in filing his motion to 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/18/06 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

2

compel, in compliance with the court’s order of May 31, 2006. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a response on

July 17, 2006. (Doc. 55.) Defendant did not file a response.

Plaintiff’s second response is also deficient. The court has twice notified plaintiff of the

requirement that he file a declaration setting forth the expenses incurred from filing his motion to

compel. Twice plaintiff has submitted a response that is not in compliance with the court’s order.

Accordingly, because the basis for plaintiff’s request for reasonable expenses in the amount

of $16.35 was not clear in his motion to compel, and because plaintiff has failed to comply with the

court’s orders of May 31, 2006, and June 22, 2006, to clarify the basis for his request and support

his request with a declaration, plaintiff’s motion seeking reasonable expenses incurred from filing

his motion to compel, filed April 19, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-AWI-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2