Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-22/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADDRESSING STATEMENT OF

DISCOVERY NEEDED (ECF Nos. 184, 187)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO

RESPONSE TO ORDER (ECF No. 189)

SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 13, 2012, the Court

issued an order denying Plaintiff’s sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth motions to compel and ordered

the parties to file a statement of discovery needed. (ECF No. 181.) On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff

filed a statement of discovery needed. (ECF No. 184.) At the order of the Court, Defendants filed

a response to the statement of discovery needed on April 2, 2012. (ECF No. 187.) Plaintiff filed a

reply on April 16, 2012. (ECF No. 189.)

Initially, the Court did not request a reply from Plaintiff and his response shall be stricken

from the record. Plaintiff is reminded that he has previously been admonished that the Court will

not tolerate his unsupported claims of misconduct bydefense counsel. (Order 6:9-15, ECF No. 131.) 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with defendants’ position does not state misconduct on the part of

Defendants. The Court is well aware of the history of the discovery disputes and orders issued in

this action.

The discovery that is requested in Plaintiff’s statement of discovery needed has not

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 195 Filed 05/04/12 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

previously been addressed by the Court. In their reply, Defendants state that they will serve

responsive documents on Plaintiff within thirty days. Since thirty days has passed, Defendants

should have served their responses on Plaintiff. The Court has previously been provided with the

substantial amount of discoverywhich Defendants have provided in response to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests. Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s are not to be filed with the Court.

Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to file a single motion to compel to address any

dispute regarding Defendants’ responses to the statement of discovery. Plaintiff is cautioned that

he should narrow the focus of his motion to discovery specifically needed and eliminate any

duplication and redundancy in his motion or in the discovery. The Court will not wade through

volumes of incoherent and unfocused papers to search for incomplete discovery, and if the motion

is not focused, the Court will deny the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s reply, filed April 16, 2012, is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD; and 

2. Plaintiff is granted the opportunity to file one motion to compel regarding the

requests in the statement of discovery needed within sixty days from the date of

service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 4, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 195 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 2