Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05108-9/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

JOSE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O VIGIL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05108-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER ADDRESSING OBJECTION TO

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

AND FINDING IT WITHOUT MERIT

(Doc. 78)

Plaintiff Jose Diaz (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2006, the Court issued

an order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel as untimely. (Doc. 75.) Plaintiff filed an objection

to the order on August 15, 2006. (Doc. 78.) To the extent that plaintiff’s objection may be construed

as a motion for reconsideration, it is without merit.

The deadline for the completion of all discovery excluding plaintiff’s deposition was March

1, 2005. (Docs. 43, 79.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel was not filed until June 19, 2006, and was

untimely. (Doc. 72.) Plaintiff’s only argument that the Court erred in denying his motion to compel

as untimely is his contention that the Court extended the deadline for both parties from March 1,

2005, to July 26, 2006. (Doc. 78, Obj., pg. 12.) 

The deadline of July 26, 2006, referred to by plaintiff in his objection, was the pretrial

dispositive motion deadline, not the discovery deadline. A motion to compel is a discovery motion,

not a pretrial dispositive motion, and with the exception of plaintiff’s deposition, the deadline for

the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, was March 1, 2005. (Doc. 43.)

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 85 Filed 02/06/07 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

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was clearly and unequivocally untimely and his objection to the Court’s

order denying it on that ground is without merit.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s objection to the Court’s order denying his motion to

compel as untimely, filed August 15, 2006, is HEREBY DEEMED ADDRESSED and found to be

without merit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05108-OWW -LJO Document 85 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2