Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738-13/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 Defendant Hasseltine filed a motion for summary judgment which was subsequently granted. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH B. WIDBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEWIS, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06738-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL

[Docs. #48 & 52]

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 October 16, 2006, plaintiff filed two identical motions

to compel pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a) and 26(b)(5). (Docs. 48 & 52). 

Defendants’ Hassletine and Kushner filed an opposition on October 18, 2006. (Doc. 51).

 In his motion, plaintiff contends that the parties have failed to respond to his discovery

requests and that he is unable to resolve disputed facts on his own. He also alleges that the

responses received have been evasive and incomplete and that the defendants produced a

privilege log listing the documents that they refuse to produce. 

 In the opposition, the defendants indicate that the sole discovery propounded was a

request for production of documents on October 13, 2005, and they timely responded to that

request. They also allege that the request for discovery was untimely. 1

Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied. He does not articulate with specificity what

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 66 Filed 09/13/07 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

the discovery dispute is, or how the defendants have not complied. Furthermore, in response,

defendants indicated that the only discovery requested by plaintiff was for production of

documents and they timely complied. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions to compel

are DENIED without prejudice to renewing it by showing with specificity how defendants have

failed to respond to discovery requests .

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 66 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2