Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03608/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03608-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVESTER MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. MAGAT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03608-HSG (PR) 

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING 

MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 28, 29, 32

INTRODUCTION

On August 8, 2014, plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Nevada Southern 

Detention Center filed a pro se amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 

constitutional violations at Santa Rita Jail and the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility, where he was 

housed as a federal pre-trial detainee. On November 24, 2014, the Court screened the complaint 

and ordered service on seven defendants.

Defendants have filed an administrative motion for extension of time to file their 

dispositive motion. Also before the Court are several miscellaneous motions brought by plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time

Good cause appearing, defendants' motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive 

motion is GRANTED. The deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion is CONTINUED 

to July 27, 2015. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants' motion within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply within fourteen (14) days of 

the date the opposition is filed.

Case 4:14-cv-03608-HSG Document 39 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Plaintiff's Request for Settlement Conference

Plaintiff has requested that the Court refer this action for a settlement conference. The 

request is DENIED as premature. As noted above, defendants anticipate filing a dispositive 

motion. The Court will therefore refer the action for settlement discussions after ruling on the

dispositive motion, if any issues remain unresolved. Plaintiff may submit his own proposed 

settlement in writing to defendants' counsel if he is so inclined. 

C. Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel. This is plaintiff's second request for 

appointment of counsel in this action. For the reasons stated in the Court's November 24, 2014 

Order, plaintiff's new request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

D. Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents

Plaintiff has filed a motion for production of documents. The Court has reviewed the 

motion and determines that is actually a discovery request that plaintiff intended to serve on 

defendants. The filing reflects plaintiff's misunderstanding of the discovery process, as a party 

may not obtain discovery by simply telling the Court what he wants to learn. The Court generally 

is not involved in the discovery process and only becomes involved when there is a dispute 

between the parties about discovery responses. Discovery requests and responses normally are 

exchanged between the parties without any copy being sent to the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(d)(1) (listing discovery requests and responses that "must not" be filed with the Court until they 

are used in the proceeding or the Court orders otherwise). Accordingly, the motion will be 

ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED. 

E. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery from third parties, specifically, the 

Alameda County Sheriff, and sheriff deputies Macintire and Shawn. There is no indication 

plaintiff has submitted either (1) a discovery request under rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, or (2) a third-party subpoena to the Court for service, under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45. Further, plaintiff fails to certify that he has fulfilled the meet and confer 

requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Northern District of California 

Case 4:14-cv-03608-HSG Document 39 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

Civil Local Rule 37-1(a). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion (dkt. no. 

25) is GRANTED. Briefing shall proceed in accordance with the schedule set forth above.

2. Plaintiff's request for a court-ordered settlement conference (dkt. no 28) is 

DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (dkt. nos. 28, 32) is DENIED.

4. The Clerk is directed to ADMINSTRATIVELY TERMINATE plaintiff's motion 

for production of documents (dkt. no. 29).

5. Plaintiff's motion to compel (dkt. no 32) is DENIED.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 25, 28, 29, and 32.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

3/23/2015

Case 4:14-cv-03608-HSG Document 39 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 3