Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00388-10/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

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

KEITH BULKIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

V. OCHOA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00056 DAD DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS

[ECF No. 53]

Plaintiff Keith Bulkin 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 22, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order which set the 

deadline for conducting discovery to September 8, 2015, and the dispositive motion deadline to 

November 5, 2015. On August 28, 2015, the Court found good cause to grant Defendants’ 

motion to modify the scheduling order and set the discovery cut-off for December 8, 2015, and 

the dispositive motion deadline for February 5, 2016. Discovery closed on December 8, 2015. 

On February 1, 2016, the Court found good cause to grant Defendants’ request to extend the 

dispositive motion deadline to May 6, 2016. On April 21, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for 

summary judgment. 

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 54 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 2
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

On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order so as to conduct 

additional discovery. On June 8, 2016, the Court denied the motion to modify the scheduling 

order. 

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant request for production of documents. 

Plaintiff’s request is procedurally improper insofar as discovery requests must be propounded on 

a party and not the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. In any case, it appears Plaintiff seeks to 

conduct additional discovery. As noted above, discovery closed on December 8, 2015. For the 

same reasons expressed in the Court’s order of June 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s request is denied. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for production of 

documents is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 54 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 2