Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05350/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05350-0/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

1

 In their response to the motion, defendants state that the discovery responses were served on June 29,

2005.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY L. FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. NEUBARTH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5350-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AS

PREMATURE

(Doc. 19)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

ADDRESS HIS CORRESPONDENCE TO

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL BY NAME AND

INCLUDE COUNSEL’S NAME ON THE

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Plaintiff Johnny L. Franklin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 27, 2005, plaintiff filed

what he apparently intends to be a motion to compel. Defendants filed a response to the motion on

June 29, 2005.

Pursuant to the court’s discovery order, defendants have forty-five days to serve responses

to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Assuming that plaintiff served his discovery requests on May 15,

2005, as he asserts, the due date to respond to plaintiff’s requests was June 30, 2005. Plaintiff’s

motion was filed prematurely on June 27, 2005.1 In addition, given that defendants’ time within

which to respond to the discovery requests had not yet expired, plaintiff could not have properly

conferred or attempted to confer in good faith regarding a legitimate discovery dispute. 

Case 1:04-cv-05350-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/02/05 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

In his response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ counsel requests that plaintiff be directed

to place counsel’s name on the proof of service to avoid delays in the receipt of mail. Plaintiff is

informed that, as with the court and the prison, the Office of the Attorney General receives a high

volume of incoming mail. To ease the administrative burden and avoid delays in routing plaintiff’s

mail to defendants’ counsel, plaintiff is directed to place counsel’s name on the proof of service, in

addition to addressing his mail to counsel by name. 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed June 27, 2005, is HEREBY

DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05350-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2