Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05806/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05806-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

GARY RONNELL PERKINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D.G. STOCKMAN, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5806 OWW DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL 

[DOC. 49] 

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint and paid the filing fee in full for initiating this

action. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to requests for admission,

filed on February 7, 2006. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on February 22, 2006. 

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

BACKGROUND

This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint filed June 7, 2004 in which plaintiff alleges

that defendants McEnroe and Montgomery falsely accused him of being an active participant in a

conspiracy to assault a correctional officer. Plaintiff alleges the false, unfounded and unwarranted

accusations led to CDC 114-D Lock Up Orders dated July 1, 2003 and August 19, 2003 which

resulted in plaintiff’s retention in administrative segregation for a 92-day period. Plaintiff alleges

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 65 Filed 09/06/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

defendants’ actions were taken in retaliation for plaintiff’s civil complaint against prison officials in

Perkins v. Terhune CV 99-20440JW (PR). 

In his motion, plaintiff states that on December 8, 2005, he served requests for admissions on

each of the named defendants. Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to respond to the discovery

within 45 days as required by the Court’s June 2, 2005 Discovery Order.

Defendants contend that plaintiff served the discovery by mail on December 8, 2005 and that

they timely served responses on January 25, 2006. 

DISCUSSION

The Court’s June 6, 2005 Discovery Order provides that responses to written discovery shall

be due forty-five days after the request is served. Plaintiff’s requests for admissions were served by

mail on December 8, 2005. Because the requests were served by mail, adding three (3) days to the

response time (Fed.R.Civ. P. 6(e), defendants’ responses served on January 25, 2006 were timely.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 5, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 65 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 2