Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064-1/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

MARK E. DORSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MOORE, et al,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM (PC) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 36)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

DISCOVERY MOTION

Discovery Deadline (including for filing any 

motions to compel): April 25, 2016

Plaintiff Mark E. Dorsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2016, Defendants 

B. Pease, C. Morelock, D. Moore, J. Martin and A. Cano filed a motion to compel interrogatory 

responses, and request for an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. (ECF 

No. 30.) Plaintiff’s response to this motion is due on or before April 25, 2016. Local Rule 230(l).

On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a response to 

Defendants’ motion to compel, and to file a “Pitchess motion.” (ECF No. 36.) In Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 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

2

motion, supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, he states that he is not wellversed in the law, and has four hours a week of law library access. He requests a thirty (30) day 

extension to file a response to Defendants’ motion to compel, and to file a Pitchess motion, or a 

motion to compel Defendants to release their history of past complaints.

First, the Court reminds Plaintiff that this action is proceeding in federal district court, 

pursuant to a claim he brings under a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, California state 

law dealing with evidentiary procedures, such as the Pitchess motion process, is generally not 

relevant to any discovery disputes before this Court. The Court is further unaware of any 

authority suggesting that California’s Pitchess motion process is applicable in federal court.

Instead, in federal court, federal law and the federal rules of civil procedure and evidence, govern

these proceedings. 

Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file a motion to compel, that 

request is denied for lack of good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The August 25, 2015

discovery and scheduling order issued in this case expressly informed the parties that any request 

for an extension of any deadline in that order would only be granted on a showing of good cause. 

(ECF No. 19, p. 3.) Plaintiff has provided no explanation for why he has been or will be unable to 

file the motion he contemplates before the April 25, 2016 deadline for such a motion in this 

matter. Despite Plaintiff’s pro se status and the fact that the Court will liberally construe his legal 

arguments, he must comply with the deadlines in this matter, all court orders, and all procedural 

requirements. See Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008–09 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that pro se

plaintiffs must follow the rules of the court). Plaintiff’s four hours per week of law library access 

does not show that he has inadequate access to prepare such a motion, under the circumstances 

presented. If Plaintiff chooses to file an untimely motion after the April 25, 2016 deadline, he 

must show good cause for doing so. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ 

motion to compel is also denied for lack of good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Contrary 

to Plaintiff’s assertion that the motion is particularly complex, it raises two straightforward, main 

arguments: (1) that Plaintiff has answered certain interrogatories by stating his investigation 

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 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

3

continues, which Defendants contend is an inadequate response; and (2) that Plaintiff has 

answered an interrogatory asking him to describe his alleged injuries by only referring to 

documents, which Defendants also contend is inadequate. (ECF No. 30-1, pp. 2-4.) As noted 

above, Plaintiff admits to four hours per week of law library access, and this is adequate, under 

the circumstances he has presented, to allow him to address Defendants’ motion. As a result, 

Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to Defendants’ motion to compel within fourteen (14) days 

of being served with this order. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff=s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 36) is DENIED;

2. The deadline for completing discovery, including filing any motions to compel, 

remains April 25, 2016; 

3. Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to Defendants’ motion to compel within 

fourteen (14) days of being served with this order; and

4. The failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including up to 

the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 38 Filed 04/21/16 Page 3 of 3