Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01633-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE JAMISON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPELLO, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01633-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR WAIVER OF DISCOVERY COSTS

(ECF No. 26)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter proceeds on an excessive force claim against Defendant 

Capello and deliberate indifference and equal protection claims against Defendants Capello 

and Kuntz. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for waiver of the cost of conducting a deposition 

by written questions on the sole ground that he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

Defendants removed this action from state court and in doing so paid the filing fee. 

Plaintiff has not been granted IFP status, but even if he had, the IFP statute does not 

provide for waiver of discovery costs. See 28 U.S.C. §1915; see also Toliver v. Community 

Action Com’n to Help the Economy, Inc., CACHE, 613 F.Supp. 1070, 1072 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 

(no clear statutory authority for prepayment of discovery costs). Plaintiff provides no 

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 27 Filed 09/30/14 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

authority to the contrary, and the Court is aware of none.

In noting that Defendants objected to his discovery, Plaintiff may in fact be 

suggesting that Defendants should be compelled to respond to that discovery. If so, the 

instant motion does not include information necessary to such a motion. A party moving to 

compel bears the burden of demonstrating why discovery objections are not justified. See 

e.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2012). This requires 

the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion 

to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and 

why the responding party's objections are not meritorious. Id.

Plaintiff’s motion does not include all this required information. Additionally, the 

deadline for filing a motion to compel expired September 3, 2014. (See ECF No. 18 at ¶ 8.) 

To seek discovery relief, Plaintiff would have to demonstrate good cause why he was

unable to seek such relief before the September 3rd deadline. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 

for waiver of discovery costs (ECF No. 26) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01633-MJS Document 27 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 2