Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34)

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“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 the

complaint, filed April 30, 2010, against Defendants Bass and Miranda for excessive force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. On May 2, 2011, a discovery and scheduling order issued

opening discovery in this action. On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel stating

that he had served requests for admissions and production of documents on August 5, 2011, and

Defendant Bass had failed to respond. 

Defendant Bass filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on October 13, 2011, stating that

responses had been served upon Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff claimed that his discovery requests

were served on August 5, 2011, the documents are dated August 7, 2011. Defendant Bass asserts

that he served timely responses.

A review of Plaintiff’s discovery requests shows that they are dated August 7, 2011, and

Defendant Bass served responses on September 21, 2011. (Exhibit A and B in Support of Defendant

Bass’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 34.) Defendant Bass’ responses were

1

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 37 Filed 11/08/11 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

served within the forty five days set in the discovery and scheduling ordering. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery and sanctions is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 7, 2011 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 37 Filed 11/08/11 Page 2 of 2