Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00793/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00793-7/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUSTIN HATCHER, A.K.A. LEXI 

HATCHER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JUNES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0793 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The case is before the court on defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s discovery 

responses. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. The 

matter is therefore deemed submitted. See Local Rule 230(l). For the reasons stated below, 

defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiff will be ordered to 

respond to defendants’ propounded discovery. 

 I. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

 Defendants state that on December 6, 2021, they served plaintiff with interrogatories, 

requests for admissions, and requests for production.1 ECF No. 36. Thereafter, on February 7, 

1

 Defendants also sent copies of the discovery requests to the defense attorney currently 

representing plaintiff in her state criminal proceeding, as this court had directed. ECF No. 36 at 

3. 

Case 2:19-cv-00793-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 4
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 

2022, they sent plaintiff a meet-and-confer letter asking her to provide responses to the discovery 

requests.2 Id. at 3. When she failed to respond, defendants sought and were granted an extension 

of the discovery deadline in order to pursue responses to the discovery requests through informal 

means, and bring a motion to compel if necessary. Plaintiff never responded to the requests. 

 Defendants’ requests for discovery seek information related to the threshold issue of 

administrative exhaustion and information related to plaintiff’s claims for relief. ECF No. 36 at 

3. Among other things, plaintiff was asked to identify possible witnesses and other individuals 

who may have relevant information regarding the factual basis for her claims. Id. at 3-4. 

 With respect to their interrogatories and requests for production, defendants argue that 

plaintiff’s failure to respond in a timely manner constitutes a waiver of any objection. See ECF 

No. 36 at 4 (citing Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 

1992)). Accordingly, they argue that the court should compel plaintiff to provide responses 

without objection. Id. 

 As for their requests for admission, defendants contend that plaintiff’s failure to respond 

should result in the matters being deemed admitted. ECF No. 36 at 4-5 (citing Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 36(a)(3)). 

 Finally, defendants ask that plaintiff be ordered to pay their expenses for bringing the 

instant motion to compel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). ECF No. 36 

at 5. They request $990.00 in reimbursement of costs. Id. 

 II. DISCUSSION 

 The record supports defendants’ summary of events leading to this motion to compel. The 

discovery and scheduling order issued on October 26, 2021, ordered the parties to have completed 

discovery by March 4, 2022. See ECF No. 33 at 6. On February 22, 2022, the court granted 

defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order. See ECF Nos. 34, 35. The modification 

extended the discovery and pretrial motion deadlines by thirty-one days, making April 4, 2022, 

2

 Defendants state that per the court’s order, this letter was also sent to defense counsel, and that 

to date, they have received no response from plaintiff’s counsel about the discovery requests. 

ECF No. 36 at 3. 

Case 2:19-cv-00793-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 4
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 

3 

the new deadline for the parties to complete discovery.3 ECF No. 35. On March 9, 2022, 

defendants filed the instant motion to compel. 

 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint states cognizable excessive force and equal protection 

claims. ECF Nos. 10, 14 at 5. Upon review of the discovery propounded by defendants (see ECF 

No. 36 at 9-28), the court finds that the requests seek information that is discoverable because 

relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

The requests comply with Rules 33 (interrogatories), 34 (production of documents) and 36(a) 

(requests for admission). Plaintiff has made no record of any reason for noncompliance with 

these requests, and none is apparent. 

 Having failed to respond in any way to defendants’ legitimate discovery requests, plaintiff 

has also failed to respond to the motion to compel. Despite plaintiff’s pro se status, she is 

required to follow all orders of this court as well as all federal and local rules. King v. Atiyeh, 

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 

govern other litigants.”). Having initiated this lawsuit, plaintiff must participate in the litigation 

process. For all these reasons, defendants’ motion to compel will be granted. 

 When a motion to compel is granted, the party whose conduct necessitated the motion 

must, in most cases, be required to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the 

motion—but this requirement may be excused when the circumstances “make an award of 

expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). In this case the court concludes that 

a levy of costs on plaintiff, who is indigent, would place an excessive financial burden on her and 

is unlikely to be paid, and for these reasons would be unjust. Accordingly, an award of expenses 

will be denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s discovery responses (ECF No. 36) is: 

 a. GRANTED IN PART to the extent that plaintiff will be ordered to respond to the 

3

 On March 18, 2022, defendants subsequently requested, and the court granted, a second 

modification of the discovery and scheduling order. See ECF Nos. 37, 38. That order vacated the 

discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, which are to be reset as necessary after the court 

rules on the instant motion to compel. ECF No. 38. 

Case 2:19-cv-00793-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

outstanding interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and the matters specified in 

defendants’ requests for admission are deemed admitted; and 

 b. DENIED IN PART as to the request for monetary sanctions. 

 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall serve complete and signed 

responses, without objection, to defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents. 

 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order within the period allotted may 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: April 28, 2022 

Case 2:19-cv-00793-WBS-AC Document 39 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 4