Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00702/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00702-7/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Darrel Lee Smith,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking redress

for violation of his federal civil rights; plaintiff claims

defendant King was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety

when King released confidential information about plaintiff’s

enemies. Plaintiff has filed a document styled, “Motion to

Compel Discovery.” Defendants filed no opposition.

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to inspect documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 73 Filed 01/06/06 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

2

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

A party who has requested admissions may move to determine

the sufficiency of the answers or objections and unless the court

determines an objection is justified, it shall order an answer be

served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). 

Plaintiff’s motion states:

Now comes plaintiff Darrel Lee Smith on June 7, 2005

filing with a proof of service on Defendant King A

[sic] motion to compel discovery of all facts relating

to his investigation in this case base [sic] on

Defendant’s [sic] King investigation was not and is not

approved in writing by the warden of the institution. 

Penal Code 2932.sec.(iii), (iv). However Smith request

[sic] Mark Baker [sic] medical record dated March 10,

2003; and his RVR 115 relating to this issue are matter

[sic] “Base on “B” [sic] Facility was on lockdown and

Mark Baker was Smith Celly [sic].

Plaintiff has made no showing he sought this information

through any of the available discovery methods. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33, 34, 36. 

I therefore deny plaintiff’s June 9, 2005, request. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b), 36(a).

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 73 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2