Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490-20/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY SAMUEL CATO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-LJO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL AS PREMATURELY FILED

(Doc. 160)

Plaintiff Anthony Samuel Cato (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 1, 2006, plaintiff filed

a motion to compel responses to requests for the production of documents served on October 28,

2006. On December 7, 2006, defendants filed an opposition to the motion on the ground that it was

prematurely filed.

Pursuant to the court’s discovery order, parties have forty-five days within which to respond

to discovery requests. (Doc. 148, ¶2.) The forty-fifth day fell on December 12, 2006, and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e) provides an additional three days for mailing. As such, defendants’

responses were not due until December 15, 2006, and plaintiff’s motion was filed prior to that

deadline, making it premature.

///

///

///

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 163 Filed 01/24/07 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

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel was prematurely filed and is HEREBY DENIED

on that ground.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 163 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2