Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01071/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01071-6/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNELL HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 40)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY SHE SHOULD NOT 

BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO 

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUEST

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment access to courts claim against Defendant Peterson. (ECF No. 10.)

On August 25, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting 

April 25, 2015 as the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 33.) The order provided that 

responses to written discovery requests were due within forty five days after the request 

was first served.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 6, 2015 motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 

40.) Defendant filed no opposition. The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS Document 43 Filed 04/30/15 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

Plaintiff states that he submitted interrogatories to Defendant on January 20, 

2015, but received no response. Documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion support this 

contention. Plaintiff contends he wrote defense counsel on March 31, 2015, in an 

attempt to resolve the issue, but again received no response. 

In light of Defendant’s failure to respond to the motion, the Court must conclude 

that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, in violation of the discovery 

order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b). Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery 

will be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit sanctions to be imposed where a 

party fails to answer interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii). Such sanctions 

include (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be 

taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) 

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or 

defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in 

whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing 

the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the 

disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order 

except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). 

Additionally, Defendant may be required to pay reasonable expenses caused by her 

failure to respond. Id. The Court will order Defendant to show cause why she should not 

be subjected to any such sanctions.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED;

2. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories within fourteen (14) 

days of the date of this order; and

Case 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS Document 43 Filed 04/30/15 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

3. Defendant shall, within fourteen (14) days of this order, show cause why 

she should not be sanctioned for failing to respond to Plaintiff’s 

interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS Document 43 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 3