Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05185-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT JACOBO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MINOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05185-JSC 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

COMPEL; GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME

Dkt. Nos. 22, 29, 32

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. He claims that Defendants, four jail employees, used excessive force 

against him. The four Defendants have been served and have appeared.1

Plaintiff filed two motions to compel discovery on May 26 and June 10, 2015 (Dkt. Nos. 

22 and 29), claiming that Defendants have failed to respond to his discovery requests. Defendants 

filed an opposition and accompanying declaration on June 26, 2015. Plaintiff has not responded to 

the opposition. In the motions and accompanying declarations, Plaintiff lists documents, written 

depositions, and interrogatory responses he seeks, and claims to have requested these items from 

Defendants. He does not, however, identify when he submitted these requests to Defendants, nor 

does he provide copies of the requests or proofs of their service. Defendants show that they 

received discovery requests on three occasions. The first, on April 28, 2015, was a set of 

interrogatories directed to Defendant Minor as well as jail employees who are not defendants. 

Defendants served Plaintiff substantive answers to all of the interrogatories on June 1, 2015. 

(Bliss Decl. Exh. A.) Plaintiff does not complain that these answers were deficient in any way. 

The next two sets of discovery were mailed to Defendants on June 1 and June 5, 2015. As the 

 

1 All remaining parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §

636. (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 33.) 

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 39 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

deadline to respond to these discovery requests (July 6 and July 9, 2015, respectively) post-date 

the motions to compel, the motions are premature to the extent they relate to these discovery 

requests. Defendants indicate in their opposition that they planned to respond to the discovery 

requests by the relevant deadlines. Plaintiff has not indicated that he has not received such 

responses or that the responses are deficient in any respect. Accordingly, the motions to compel 

are DENIED without prejudice. 

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, to and including 

October 5, 2015, in which to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 32). All other 

deadlines set forth in the order of service remain in effect. Plaintiff has asked about the deadline 

for completing discovery. No such deadline has been set, but his opposition to any dispositive 

motion by Defendants will be due within 28 days from the date he is served with such a motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05185-JSC Document 39 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2