Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05745/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05745-0/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

JIMMY MARISCAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERHUNE, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5745 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

THAT DEFENDANTS FORWARD

EVIDENCE (Doc. 58.) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 57.) 

 Jimmy Mariscal (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 15, 2005, Defendants filed an unenumerated Motion to Dismiss the case on the

grounds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On August 1, 2005,

Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file an Opposition to the Motion. On August 10,

2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting the Court to Order Defendants and their witnesses to

forward evidence to him. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to

produce numerous 602 administrative grievances filed by other inmates regarding their living

conditions. 

The Scheduling Order issued on December 8, 2004, expressly set forth a discovery

deadline of May 20, 2005, and a dispositive motion deadline of July 20, 2005. Defendants

Motion is timely. However, Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents made to the

Court and not to the Defendants is not. Even were the request timely, Plaintiff is not seeking

Case 1:03-cv-05745-REC -SMS Document 59 Filed 08/16/05 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

documents that demonstrate whether or not he exhausted his administrative remedies, but is

seeking documents regarding living conditions filed by other inmates. Plaintiff does not state

the relevance of these documents to the pending Motion to Dismiss. In fact, Plaintiff concedes

that he is not attempting to file a class action but an action for himself only and that he has

mentioned these inmates in his complaint. However, the fact that he names these individuals in

his complaint does not entitle him to the documents he seeks. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to

obtain these documents to support his claim concerning the living conditions in the SHU, such

documents should have been sought during the discovery process and if they were and his

requests were denied, a motion to compel them was appropriate. However, as noted above, the

discovery deadline has expired and the Court will not now entertain late motions for discovery or

to compel. Moreover, Plaintiff must first overcome the Motion for exhaustion pending before

the Court by producing evidence to rebut the assertions made by Defendants in their Motion. 

Plaintiff can certainly make his assertions regarding “group appeals” in his Opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss. However, due to the expiration of the relevant deadlines, his request for an

Order to require Defendants to produce documents must be DENIED. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Request for an Order requiring Defendants to forward evidence is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to

file his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05745-REC -SMS Document 59 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2