Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00620-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. EDWARDS, No. CIV S-08-0620-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CSP SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the

undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents

(Doc. 53). Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. 55); Plaintiff has filed a

reply (Doc. 56).

The court notes that plaintiff has titled this document a motion for production of

documents, not a motion to compel. It is apparent from the filings, that plaintiff propounded

interrogatories, but not a request for production of documents, on defendants. Defendants

apparently timely responded to the interrogatories. However, no request for production of

Case 2:08-cv-00620-CMK Document 57 Filed 01/03/11 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

To the extent Plaintiff did ask for the document in the interrogatory, the 1

interrogatories have not been provided to the court. The court cannot therefore review the

interrogatory and response thereto for sufficiency. 

2

documents was ever propounded on defendants.

Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the parties with the

ability to request copies of documents related to the claims raised in an action. However,

plaintiff failed to avail himself the opportunity to request such documents through the means

provided. Rather, he propounded interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, which defendants

responded to. Plaintiff is not requesting the court issue an order compelling a response or further

response from defendants. Rather, plaintiff is requesting the court issue an order requiring

defendants to produce a document he never asked for. The court declines to issue an order for 1

the production of documents which plaintiff failed to request during discovery. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for production of

documents (Doc. 53) is denied.

DATED: January 3, 2011

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00620-CMK Document 57 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2