Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00024-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RAUL ERNEST ALONSO-PRIETO,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. PIERCE, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00024-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF 

(ECF No. 57) 

Plaintiff Raul Ernest Alonso-Prieto is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 

S.Ct. 1999 (1971). This matter proceeds on an excessive force claim against Defendant 

Pierce. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking miscellaneous relief. It seeks discovery

sanctions, a stay of discovery and a stay of the action, and reconsideration of the Court’s 

January 30, 2014 order denying his January 29, 2014 motion to modify discovery. 

I. COMPELLING DISCOVERY / SANCTIONS

Plaintiff claims that Defendant did not respond to his discovery requests for a 

surveillance video. He wants the non-response deemed an admission that the video does 

not exist. 

Courts in the Eastern District of California have required, “at a minimum, [that] the 

moving party plaintiff has the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 58 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 4
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

the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the defendant's responses are disputed, 

(3) why he believes the defendant's responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant's 

objections are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is 

relevant to the prosecution of this action.” Walker v. Karelas, 2009 WL 3075575, at *1 (E.D.

Cal. Sep.21, 2009); Brooks v. Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb.10, 2009).

Plaintiff has not complied with these requirements. He offers only the argument of 

his “next friend”, C.A. Powell. He fails to inform the Court which discovery requests, 

properly served, are the subject of the motion to compel. He does not address the other 

requirements of a discovery motion. Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 13, 2012); Womack v. Virga, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec.21, 2011); see 

also Rules 5, 7, 11, 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 110, 130, 131, 

133, 135, 142, 144, 230(l) and 251 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States 

District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Additionally, the deadline to complete discovery and bring discovery motions expired 

March 10, 2014. (ECF No. 52.) A motion to extend discovery must include a showing of 

good cause, reasons why discovery could not have been completed prior to expiration of 

the deadline and a statement of the amount of time needed to complete discovery. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b); ECF No. 30, ¶ 11. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a need for and entitlement to an order compelling 

discovery and imposing discovery sanctions. 

II. STAY

Plaintiff wants to stay the taking of his deposition and the entire action because he is 

in Canada on a family emergency until February 2015, and because of Defendant’s alleged 

refusal to respond to his discovery requests.

“The district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997), citing 

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The proponent of the stay bears 

the burden of establishing its need.” Id. at 706. The Court considers the following factors 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 58 Filed 05/09/14 Page 2 of 4
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

3

when ruling on a request to stay proceedings: (1) the possible damage which may result 

from the granting of a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 

required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the 

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected 

to result from a stay. Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972), quoting 

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

Plaintiff’s mere assertion that he is out of the county and unavailable due to family 

emergency is not alone sufficient to stay discovery and the action. See Young v. I.N.S., 208 

F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (strength of justification for stay should balance length of 

any stay granted). A yearlong event suggests anything but an emergency.

Additionally, staying this action would create a risk of prejudice to the Defendant. 

“[D]elay inherently increases the risk that witnesses' memories will fade and evidence will 

become stale”. Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 1999); see 

Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976) (a presumption of injury arises 

from delay in resolving an action). Delay also disrupts the Court's schedules.

Plaintiff is obliged to diligently prosecute this action. Failure to do so will result in 

dismissal.

III. RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff asserts the Court’s January 30, 2014 order denying his January 29, 2014 

motion modifying discovery (sic) was in error; that what the Court believed to be an 

improperly filed discovery request was actually a sufficient (for a pro per) motion to compel 

further responses. 

The Court may relieve a party from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This relief is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent 

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances exist. 

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Local Rule 230(j) 

requires, in relevant part, that Plaintiff show “what new or different facts or circumstances 

are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what 

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 58 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at 

the time of the prior motion.”

Here Plaintiff’s does not demonstrate any error of fact or law in the January 30th 

order. He is referred to that order (ECF No. 55) for the specific reasons relief was denied, 

which can be summarized as uncertainty whether the subject discovery was served on 

Defendant, whether Defendant had responded and if so how, and why further responses 

were appropriate. 

IV. PRO SE REQUIREMENTS

Plaintiff purports to appear by and through his “next friend”, C.A. Powell. Some of 

Plaintiff’s submittals appear to have been signed by Mr. Powell. 

Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this action. He must represent himself. He may not act 

through another who is not his attorney. Fed. R. Civ. P. 83; Local Rule 183. 

Additionally, Plaintiff must keep the Court apprised of his current address. Local 

Rule 183(b). He uses a Canadian address in this motion. It is not clear if that is his current 

address or the South Gate, California address of record. 

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in appropriate sanction 

including dismissal. 

V. ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion seeking miscellaneous relief 

(ECF No. 57) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MJS Document 58 Filed 05/09/14 Page 4 of 4