Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01874-32/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

BILAL AHDOM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION REQUESTING PARDON FOR 

MISTAKE AND REQUEST FOR 

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY MOTIONS

(ECF No. 179)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schaefer, Araich, Chen, Shittu, and Ashby for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On February 18, 2016, Defendant Ashby filed a motion to compel certain discovery 

responses. (ECF No. 170.) On February 29, 2016, Defendants Araich, Chen, and Shittu filed two 

motions to compel certain discovery responses, (ECF Nos. 171, 173), and a motion to determine 

the sufficiency of answers or objections, (ECF No. 172). Plaintiff failed to respond to any of 

these motions. 

On April 20, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to Defendants’ motions, listed above. (ECF No. 175.) Plaintiff was permitted thirty 

Case 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM Document 184 Filed 09/15/16 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

(30) days from the date of service of that order to comply. (Id. at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff’s response 

was due on or before May 30, 2016. (ECF

On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed the current motion, entitled “Motion Requesting Pardon 

for Mistake in Interpreting this Court’s 4/20/16 Order and Requesting Another Opportunity to 

File the Correct Response to Defendants’ Motions.” (ECF No. 179.) In that motion, Plaintiff 

explained that on or about May 19, 2016, he mistakenly mailed to the Court his responses to 

Defendants’ discovery requests in lieu of an opposition or statement of non-opposition. The 

discovery responses were returned to him on or around May 27, 2016, at which point he realized 

he misinterpreted the Court’s order, and subsequently filed this motion. Plaintiff requests another 

opportunity to respond to the pending discovery motions, based on his attempt to comply and 

mistake and confusion. 

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the 

pending discovery motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court is hopeful that Plaintiff has sent 

Defendants some discovery responses that may have eliminated some or all of the parties’ 

discovery dispute, and resolution between the parties of such disputes without Court intervention 

is preferred. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a statement of 

non-opposition to Defendants’ discovery motions, listed above, (ECF No. 170, 171, 172, and 

173), within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order 

may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM Document 184 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2