Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-35/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

EARL WARNER, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. CATE, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01146-MJS (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 150)

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. (ECF No. 1 & 7.) This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Walker, 

Davis1, Prokop, Spralding, and Fellows for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. (ECF No. 10.)

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF Nos. 126 & 129). On December 

12, 2016, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 142.) Now pending before the Court is what Plaintiff labels 

a “Motion for Reconsideration” of the Court’s order. (ECF No. 150.) Therein, Plaintiff 

asks the Court to compel Defendant Walker to provide a response to Interrogatory No. 

24, which reads: 

 

1

Formerly designated Defendant D. McGaha.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 153 Filed 01/06/17 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

“What is the name, C.D.C.R. No. current address of the other inmate assigned to 

the cell of Plaintiff, in Building Two on January 19th and 20th, 2011?”

(ECF No. 150 at 2.) 

Interrogatory No. 24 was not included in Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (See ECF 

Nos. 126 at 22-28 & 129 at 22-28) (seeking to compel responses to Interrogatories Nos. 

7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 17.) Plaintiff’s instant motion is therefore not a motion for 

reconsideration, but rather a new motion to compel. This motion is untimely. (See ECF 

Nos. 112 & 124.) For that reason Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 153 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2