Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00716-15/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

SAMUEL DANCY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00716-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING

ACKNOWLEDGE OF RECEIPT

OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES

(Doc. 60)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Samuel Dancy, Jr.,

a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On December 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a

motion seeking an order compelling Defendants to acknowledge receipt of his discovery responses.

Defendants filed motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to their discoveryrequests onAugust

6, 2009. The motions were granted on October 27, 2009, and Plaintiff was ordered to serve his

responses within forty-five days. Plaintiff’s position is that he served complete responses on

September 2, 2009, and no longer has the interrogatories because he returned them on that date. 

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to acknowledge receipt of his discovery responses.

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants notified the Court that the motions to compel were moot,

and therefore, the Court ruled on the motions on October 27, 2009. To the extent that Plaintiff

served complete responses to the discovery requests at issue in Defendants’ motions to compel after

the motions were filed but before the Court ruled, the Court’s order has been satisfied and there are

no further matters pending with respect to the order or Plaintiff’s compliance. In light of the fact

that more than forty-five days have passed since the order was issued and there are no motions to

1

Case 1:07-cv-00716-JLT Document 63 Filed 02/05/10 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

compel pending, the Court’s involvement in this matter has come to a conclusion. Given the absence

of evidence in the record to the contrary, it appears Defendants received Plaintiff’s response and are

satisfied, as they did not file another motion to compel.

If Plaintiff wishes to verify receipt of his discovery responses by Defendants, he may write

defense counsel a letter and request that relief. The Court involves itself in discovery matters only

if there is an issue pending before it which requires Court intervention, and there are no longer any

pending discovery matters in this action. Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to

acknowledge receipt of his discovery responses is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00716-JLT Document 63 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2