Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02097-8/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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Guillermo Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint, filed on October 24, 2012, against Defendants Saylor and McCue for 

denial of access to the court. 

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to answer 

Plaintiff’s request for admissions, interrogatories and request for production of documents filed on 

September 12, 2013. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants opposed the motion on September 27, 2013, and 

Plaintiff replied on October 23, 2013. (ECF Nos. 55, 59.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local 

Rule 230(l). 

///

///

GUILLERMO GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. MIX, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02097-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 54)

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 60 Filed 10/24/13 Page 1 of 3
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

II. Discussion

On January 10, 2013, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. Pursuant to that 

order, any discovery requests were required to be served “at least forty-five (45) days before the 

discovery deadline.” (ECF No. 46, p. 1.) The deadline to complete discovery was set for September 

10, 2013. Therefore, all discovery requests must have been served on or before July 27, 2013. 

Plaintiff now requests a court order compelling Defendants to respond to his requests for 

admissions, which were served on August 14, 2013, and his first set of interrogatories, which were 

served on August 18, 2013. (ECF No. 55, Ex. A to Defs’ Opp’n.) Plaintiff’s discovery requests were 

untimely. Pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling order, Plaintiff’s discovery requests must 

have been served on or before July 27, 2013. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 seeking to amend the scheduling order and extend the discovery 

deadline to serve his discovery requests. Plaintiff may file such a motion if he so chooses. 

In his reply, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have waived any argument that he failed to seek 

an extension of the discovery deadlines because they did not oppose his request for an extension of 

time to respond to Defendant McCue’s interrogatories and requests for admissions. Plaintiff’s 

argument lacks merit because the Court did not extend the discovery deadline in this action. Rather, 

Plaintiff applied to the Court for an extension of time to August 22, 2013, to respond to Defendant 

McCue’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 50, p.1.) Although Plaintiff’s application included a 

declaration stating that he required additional time to serve his own interrogatories and request for 

admissions, the application itself did not seek modification of the scheduling order to extend the

discovery deadline pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. (ECF Nos. 50, p. 2.) Accordingly, 

the Court granted the relief requested in the application and only extended Plaintiff’s time to respond 

to Defendant McCue’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 51.) 

Further, Plaintiff’s argument that his delay in receiving Defendants’ discovery requests 

resulted in less time for him to serve his own discovery requests is unavailing. Plaintiff had the right 

to serve Defendants with his discovery requests as soon as the Court issued its discovery and 

scheduling order in January 2013. Nothing in the Court’s order required Plaintiff to wait until he 

received or responded to Defendants’ discovery requests.

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 60 Filed 10/24/13 Page 2 of 3
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

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to answer Plaintiff’s admissions, 

interrogatories and request for production of documents is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiff so 

chooses, he may file a motion to amend the discovery and scheduling order to extend the discovery 

cut-off date pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Such motion must be filed within thirty 

(30) days after service of this order. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02097-BAM Document 60 Filed 10/24/13 Page 3 of 3