Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980-10/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

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

EDWARD JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. T. LUNDY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 53)

Plaintiff Edward Jones (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s third amended complaint, filed April 18, 2005, against defendants Lundy, Manning, and

Cadena (“defendants”) for using excessive physical force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On January 25, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion

to compel filed on December 20, 2006. The order stated in relevant part:

POD 6: Plaintiff seeks Corrections’ use of force policy and incident report filing.

Defendants object on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly broad,

duplicative as to incident report filing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, and on the ground of confidentiality. Defendants

state that non-confidential sections of the Department Operations Manual are

available to plaintiff in the law library.

Defendants’ conclusory objection of confidentiality is insufficient to shield them

from producing discoverable documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. 603 at 613; Kelly, 114

F.R.D. at 669. However, the court agrees that plaintiff’s request is vague as to

“incident report filing.” The court is unsure what documents plaintiff is seeking as

responsive to that portion of the request. With respect to use of force policies, the

request is overly broad and vague. It is unclear if plaintiff is seeking California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations’ policies or the California

Correctional Institution’s policies or both, and for what period of time. If plaintiff

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 58 Filed 03/22/07 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

wishes to re-draft and re-serve this request, he may do so within thirty days from the

date of service of this order. If plaintiff re-drafts and re-serves this request,

defendants have thirty days to serve a response, and plaintiff has fifteen days from

the date of service of defendants’ response within which to file a motion to compel,

if he deems one necessary. 

(Doc. 49, 4:1-16 (emphasis added).)

On February 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to compel a response to this discovery

request. (Doc. 53.) In no event is this issue ripe for another motion to compel. Pursuant to the

court’s order, the burden was on plaintiff to re-draft and re-serve request number 6 on defendants’

counsel. Defendants’ counsel then had thirty days from the date of re-service to serve a response.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel nineteen days after the court’s order was served. Even

if plaintiff had immediately re-drafted and re-served request number 6 on defendants’ counsel, and

there is no evidence he in fact did so, the time for defendants to respond had not yet expired. 

In accordance with the mandates of the court’s order filed January 25, 2007, plaintiff’s

motion to compel, filed February 13, 2007, is premature and is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 58 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2