Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00076/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00076-7/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TORY BRATTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-CV-0076-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to 

requests for production of documents, ECF No. 38, and Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to 

interrogatories, ECF No. 39. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an in camera review, 

ECF No. 40. Defendants have filed oppositions to all three motions, ECF Nos. 41 and 42. 

In his motions to compel, Plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of responses 

received but, instead, argues that he never received responses. See ECF Nos. 38 and 39. As 

reflected in defense counsel's declaration, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents 

on all Defendants on April 14, 2024, interrogatories on Defendants Castillo, Roland, and Sanchez 

on April 17, 2024, and interrogatories on Defendants Black and Staggs-Boatright on April 24, 

2024. See ECF No. 41-1, pgs. 1-2. Defendants served responses to Plaintiff's requests for 

production and Plaintiff's interrogatories to Defendants Castillo, Roland, and Sanchez on June 3, 

Case 2:21-cv-00076-DC-DMC Document 43 Filed 09/03/24 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

2024. See id. at 2. Defendants served responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories to Defendants Black 

and Staggs-Boatright on June 7, 2024. See id. 

Plaintiff's motions to compel were signed on May 29, 2024, and filed on June 10, 

2024. See ECF Nos. 38 and 39. It appears, as Defendants note, that the motions crossed in the 

mail with Defendants' responses. Because timely responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests were 

provided by Defendants, Plaintiffs' motions will be denied as moot. See Romero v. L.H. Herrera 

Income Tax & Ins., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201561, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Finally, because 

Plaintiff's motions do not challenge the sufficiency of Defendants' responses, Plaintiff's motion 

for an in camera review will be denied as unnecessary. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motions to compel, ECF Nos. 38 and 39, are denied as moot. 

2. Plaintiff's motion for an in camera review, ECF No. 40, is denied as 

unnecessary. 

Dated: August 30, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00076-DC-DMC Document 43 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 2