Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00200/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00200-8/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

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

cc: The Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller

 All parties 1 07cv200 JM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCHOA, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 07cv200 JM (PCL)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY (Doc. 103.) 

Plaintiff moved the Court for an order pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure compelling Defendant Mudra to answer more fully Interrogatory No. 4, written as follows:

“Please state the name(s) of any and all Calipatria State prison official(s) who delegated you as the

interviewer of plaintiff’s grievance/Appeal Log No. CAL-A-08-00893.” (Doc. 103-2, at 4.) Defendant

Mudra initially answered the question as follows: “Defendant Mudra’s responsibility to conduct any

grievance/appeal interview can be delegated by any of the following: Captain, Warden, Associate

Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, Appeals Coordinator.” (Doc. 105, at 2.) Since filing the motion,

Plaintiff has received a more detailed response to Interrogatory No. 4. (See Doc. 105, Exhibit C.) The

pertinent part of Defendant Mudra’s response is as follows: “the delegation of this responsibility is a

process. In your case, the Warden, L. Small, and the Chief Deputy Warden, T. Ochoa, assigned the

grievance to the Appeals Coordinator, D. Bell, who, in turn, assigned the grievance to the Associate

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 113 Filed 05/07/09 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

cc: The Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller

 All parties 2 07cv200 JM

Warden, G. Janda. Mr. Janda then assigned the grievance to Captain R. Madden, who, in turn, assigned

it to Mr. Mudra.” (Id.) 

Because Defendant Mudra has provided a detailed response to Interrogatory No. 4, Plaintiff’s

motion to compel (doc. 103) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2009

 Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 113 Filed 05/07/09 Page 2 of 2