Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064-3/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

MARK E. DORSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MOORE, et al,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM (PC) 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 42)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO 

TERMINATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL 

(ECF No. 30)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL 

(ECF No. 40)

Dispositive motion deadline: September 9, 

2016

Plaintiff Mark E. Dorsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Correctional Officers Moore, Martin and Cano for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Correctional Officer Morelock 

and Correctional Sergeant Pease for failure to intervene in the use of excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 7.)

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 43 Filed 05/13/16 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

Currently before the Court are certain discovery-related motions and filings which require 

resolution, as explained below.

I. Defendants’ Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel

On March 30, 2016, Defendants B. Pease, C. Morelock, D. Moore, J. Martin and A. Cano 

filed a motion to compel interrogatory responses, and request for an extension of the discovery 

and dispositive motion deadlines. (ECF No. 30.) Shortly thereafter, the Court vacated the 

dispositive motion deadline pending its ruling on Defendants’ motion to compel. (ECF No. 39.) 

The Court also granted Defendants a sixty (60) extension from the issuance of that ruling to take

Plaintiff’s deposition and to file a second motion to compel, if any. (Id. at 3.) 

On May 11, 2016, Defendants filed a notice seeking to withdraw their first motion to 

compel, and for clarification on the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. (ECF No. 42.) 

Defendants state that on or about May 2, 2016, they received Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses 

that they had sought to compel. Defendants also suggest that the Court set a deadline of July 1, 

2016 within which they must conduct Plaintiff’s deposition and file any motion to compel 

regarding matters raised in that deposition, if any. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’

notice of withdrawal, but no response is necessary, as Plaintiff is not prejudiced by having a 

motion against him withdrawn and having deadlines set. Local Rule 230(l).

The Court finds good cause to set the requested deadline here, as it is reasonable and 

efficient. Furthermore, the Court finds that it is prudent to set a deadline for the filing of 

dispositive motions (which applies to both parties), to ensure this litigation continues moving 

forward. Consequently, Defendants must conduct Plaintiff’s deposition and file any second 

motion to compel, if required, by July 1, 2016. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions 

(other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust), is September 9, 2016. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 40.) He seeks any 

surveillance footage, video, DVD memory card, and digital camera footage of the November 11, 

2013 incident at issue. Plaintiff’s motion is untimely since it was filed after the April 25, 2016 

deadline for filing such a motion in this matter, pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling 

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 43 Filed 05/13/16 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

order. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was repeatedly and expressly warned that his motion would be 

untimely if it was filed after that date, and that if he chose to file an untimely motion, he must 

provide good cause for doing so. (Id. at 2; see also ECF No. 38.) Despite these warnings, Plaintiff 

provides no explanation for the lateness of his filing. 

Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 41.) They note that the motion 

is untimely, but notwithstanding this issue, they agree to make arrangements to provide Plaintiff 

any responsive, non-confidential video for his viewing, in accordance with CDCR policies and 

procedures, within the next thirty (30) days. Plaintiff has not yet filed any reply to the response, 

but the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced, since Defendants have agreed to provide 

him his requested discovery. Local Rule 230(l).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied both because it is untimely, and because it is 

now moot. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 30) shall be deemed WITHDRAWN; 

2. Defendants must depose Plaintiff, and file a second motion to compel, if 

necessary, no later than July 1, 2016; and 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 40) is DENIED;

4. Pursuant to agreement by Defendants, defense counsel SHALL make 

arrangements for Plaintiff to view non-confidential video footage of the November 11, 2013 

incident at issue in this case, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order;

5. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary 

judgment for failure to exhaust), is September 9, 2016; and

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 43 Filed 05/13/16 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

6. A request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or 

before the expiration of the deadline in question and will only be granted on a showing of 

good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 43 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 4