Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02055/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02055-3/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

JOHN LLOYD HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIO CONSUMNES CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-2055 WBS KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are pending before the court.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 34)

In the August 18, 2016 motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that he served defendants with 

interrogatories on July 13, 2016, to which they failed to respond. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff 

requests that defendants be sanctioned and ordered to respond to the interrogatories. (Id.)

In the opposition to the motion to compel (ECF No. 35), defendants observe that the 

discovery order, filed June 1, 2016, states that responses to discovery requests are due forty-five 

days after the requests are served. (See ECF No. 31 at 4.) Defendants state that plaintiff served 

his interrogatories on July 13, 2016, and a request for admissions on July 17, 2016. (ECF No. 

35.) Defendants state that their last day to serve a response to the interrogatories is August 29, 

Case 2:15-cv-02055-WBS-KJN Document 43 Filed 09/23/16 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

2

2016, and the last day to serve a response to the request for admissions is September 5, 2016, i.e., 

forty-five days from service of the discovery request, plus three additional days for service 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. 

Defendants are correct that their responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests are not due 

until forty-five days after the requests are served. Therefore, defendants did not fail to serve 

plaintiff with timely responses to his interrogatories. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

In the opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion to compel is frivolous. 

Defendants request that plaintiff be sanctioned $390, the attorneys’ fees incurred by defendants to

respond to plaintiff’s motion. If a motion to compel is denied, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37(a)(5)(B) authorizes the court to order the moving party to pay attorney’s fees unless 

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Because plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the undersigned finds that the award of attorney’s 

fees is unjust. However, by this order, plaintiff is reminded regarding when responses to 

discovery requests are due. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept Defendants’ Failure to Respond to Request for Admissions (ECF 

No. 36)

In this motion filed August 25, 2016, plaintiff argues that defendants did not provide 

timely responses to his request for admissions and requests that his requests be deemed admitted. 

In their opposition to this motion, defendants argue that because he served his requests for 

admissions on July 17, 2016, defendants’ responses were due forty-five days later on September 

5, 2016. (ECF No. 41.) Defendants state that they served plaintiff with their responses to the 

requests for admissions on August 26, 2016. (Id.)

The undersigned finds that defendants did not fail to provide plaintiff with untimely 

responses to his request for admissions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to deem his request for 

admissions admitted is denied.

In their opposition, defendants request that plaintiff be sanctioned pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for bringing the “grossly premature” motion alleging defendants’ 

failure to respond to his request for admissions. 

Case 2:15-cv-02055-WBS-KJN Document 43 Filed 09/23/16 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

3

It appears that both of plaintiff’s motions alleging defendants’ failure to provide timely 

discovery responses were based on plaintiff’s misunderstanding regarding when the responses

were due. Accordingly, sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 are not warranted. Plaintiff has been 

reminded regarding when discovery responses are due.

Plaintiff’s Request to Amend the Complaint

On September 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court 

requesting information regarding whether he is permitted to file a second amended complaint. 

(ECF No. 39.) This letter is docketed as a motion to file a second amended complaint.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may file a second amended 

complaint only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. In addition, a 

proposed second amended complaint should include a motion for leave to file a second amended 

complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 34) is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to accept defendants’ failure to respond to his request for admissions 

(ECF No. 36) is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 39) is deemed 

resolved.

Dated: September 23, 2016

Hou2055.com

Case 2:15-cv-02055-WBS-KJN Document 43 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 3