Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745-6/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

1

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE I. JOHNSON, No. CIV S-06-1745-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SCOT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 22), filed on

June 4, 2007. 

In his motion, plaintiff seeks further responses to his discovery requests. The

court notes that this appears to be plaintiff’s second motion regarding these discovery requests. 

Plaintiff’s prior motion was denied as procedurally defective. The court stated:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is procedurally defective. In

particular, plaintiff has not provided the court with copies of the disputed

discovery responses. The only response from defendants submitted with

plaintiff’s motion is defendant Kernan’s response to a request for

production of documents. However, that response does not correlate to

any of the discovery requests attached to plaintiff’s motion and which

plaintiff asserts are the subject of his motion. For example, defendant

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 23 Filed 06/08/07 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

2

Kernan’s response indicates that the first request for production sought the

names, titles, and duties of all staff members who are named in the

complaint. None of the discovery requests provided by plaintiff, however,

seeks this information. For this court to evaluate a motion to compel

further discovery responses, the moving party must submit both the

discovery request at issue as well as the allegedly deficient response to

that request. Because plaintiff has not done so, his motion to compel must

be denied.

The instant motion is also defective in that it is untimely. On February 8, 2007,

the court issued a scheduling order directing that discovery could proceed until May 25, 2007,

and that any motions to compel relating to discovery had to be filed by that cut-off date. The

instant motion to compel was signed and served by plaintiff on May 31, 2007, and filed on June

4, 2007. The court observes that, while discovery was opened on February 8, 2007, plaintiff

waited until April to serve his discovery requests. 

As with his prior motion to compel, in the current motion plaintiff seeks

modification of the scheduling order to allow time for supplemental responses. Because no

supplemental responses are being ordered, the request for modification of the scheduling order is

moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 22) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for modification of the scheduling order is denied. 

DATED: June 7, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 23 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2