Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06115/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06115-1/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

MICHAEL PEDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFFS ISSAC, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6115 OWW LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL 

(Doc. 37.) 

 Michael Peden (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

On April 22, 2005, Defendants moved to compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories,

and Request for Production of documents. According to Defendants, several requests for the

production of documents and responses to interrogatories were propounded on Plaintiff in

February and March of this year. However, Plaintiff has not responded to any of Defendant’s

discovery requests. 

Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Charles F. Collins contacted

Plaintiff by mail on April 12, 2005, in an attempt to resolve the discovery issues. However,

Case 1:02-cv-06115-OWW -LJO Document 44 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff did not respond to the letter. (Collins Decl. at 9.) 

Mr. Collins then met with Plaintiff at his deposition regarding the discovery dispute and

requested that Plaintiff respond immediately. According to the Collins Declaration, Plaintiff

indicated that he was not refusing to respond but was having difficulty due to various problems

and impediments related to his being incarcerated. Mr. Collins informed Plaintiff that he was

going to file a Motion to Compel before the expiration of the discovery deadline as required by

the Court’s Scheduling Order but that if Plaintiff complied, he would not pursue the Motion. To

date, Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests or

objected to those requests made. In addition, Plaintiff has not filed any Opposition to the

Motion to Compel. As the time for filing an Opposition to the Motion to Compel has expired,

the Motion is submitted for resolution by the Court. 

As noted above, Plaintiff has made no contact with the Court or the Defendants regarding

the outstanding discovery. Thus, it is unclear whether it is Plaintiffs intention to litigate this case

further. In any event, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the rules of discovery has hindered

Defendants efforts to defend. Accordingly, the Court finds the Motion to Compel warranted and

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories, and Requests for

Production of Documents is GRANTED;

2. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL

respond to the following: 

a. Defendant J. Frank’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One);’

b. Defendant J. Frank’s Special Interrogatories (Set One);

c. Defendant R. Contreras’ Special Interrogatories (Set One);

d. Defendant B. Ketcherside’s Special Interrogatories (Set One);

e. Defendant H. Jiminez’ Special Interrogatories (Set One);

f. Defendant A. Litke’s Special Interrogatories (Set One);

g. Defendant Tellez’ Special Interrogatories (Set One);

h. Defendant A. Litke’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One);

Case 1:02-cv-06115-OWW -LJO Document 44 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 3
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

I. Defendant Tellez’ Request for Production of Documents (Set One);

j. Defendant R. Contreras’ Request for Production of Documents (Set One);

k. Defendant H. Jiminez Request for Production of Documents (Set One);

l. Defendant B. Ketcherside’s Request for Production of Documents (Set

One);

m. Defendant J. Frank’s Request for Production of Documents (Set Two). 

The Court will entertain no further discovery disputes, as discovery in this action has

closed. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may subject him to

sanctions including dismissal of the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06115-OWW -LJO Document 44 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 of 3