Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00645/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00645-13/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY L. BROOKINS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

RAJENDRA DWIVEDI,

 Defendant.

1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE

(ECF No. 61.)

Barry L. Brookins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 

Complaint filed on May 10, 2019, against sole defendant Dr. Rajendra Dwivedi (“Defendant”) 

for failing to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 

1.) 

On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel admissions and responses to 

interrogatories. (ECF No. 61.) This is Plaintiff’s second motion to compel.1

Plaintiff’s motion shall again be denied as premature. Plaintiff is reminded that discovery 

in this case has not yet been opened. When this case is ready for discovery the court will issue a 

 

1 Plaintiff filed the first motion to compel on May 21, 2020, and the motion was denied as 

premature on May 26, 2020. (ECF Nos. 59, 60.)

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 62 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 2
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

scheduling order opening discovery. Discovery will not be opened until after Defendant has filed 

an answer to the complaint.2 Therefore, it is not time for discovery in this case and Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel shall be denied. Plaintiff should not send Defendant discovery requests until 

after discovery has been opened.

Plaintiff requests the court to compel responses by Defendant because “set one of 

admissions and interrogatories [have] been stonewalled, thwarted [and] rebuffed by the 

Defendant [preventing] the Plaintiff [from] mak[ing] a defense for summary judgment.” (ECF 

No. 61.) As discussed above, Defendant is not obligated to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests until after discovery has been opened.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied as premature, without 

prejudice to renewal of the motion after discovery has been opened.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on June 

4, 2020, is DENIED as premature, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 Defendant Dwivedi filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2020. (ECF No. 46.) Under Rule 

12(a)(4), the filing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss extends the time for Defendant to file an answer until after the 

motion to dismiss has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4); See Hernandez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 1:17-cv00211-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 10323280 (E.D. Cal. November 2, 2018).

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 62 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2