Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01234-9/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONTAE LARAIL MCFADDEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM WONG, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:22-cv-1234 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a motion to 

compel discovery. ECF No. 33. However, the deadline for filing motions to compel discovery 

was December 18, 2023. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely by nearly a month 

and provides no explanation for the delay in filing. Moreover, even if the court were willing to 

overlook the untimeliness of the filing, the motion does not reproduce the requests at issue or 

defendant’s responses and makes only general assertions regarding why defendant’s responses 

were deficient. 

The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same 

standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 

moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of 

which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, 

for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not 

justified. 

Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. 

Case 2:22-cv-01234-AC Document 34 Filed 01/25/24 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 

Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). Without the original requests; defendants’ 

responses, including any objections; and plaintiff’s explanation as to why the responses are 

deficient, the court is unable to determine whether production should be compelled. For all these 

reasons, the motion will be denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 33) 

is DENIED. 

DATED: January 24, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01234-AC Document 34 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 2