Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

H. A. RIOS, et al., 

Defendant..

 /

CASE No. 1:09-cv-00781-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

(ECF Nos. 74, 76)

Plaintiff Donte Rolando Harris, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action on April 27, 2009 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). (ECF No. 1.) 

This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against

Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza, and Valero for interfering with incoming mail in

violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment; against Defendant Cobb for

interfering with outgoing mail in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment;

and against Defendants Estrada, Cobb, Valero, and Zaragoza for violating Plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in connection with Plaintiff’s mail.

Defendants filed their Answer on October 25, 2012. (ECF No. 69.) The Court issued its

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 77 Filed 02/22/13 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

Discovery and Scheduling Order on October 29, 2012, setting a discovery cut-off of

June 29, 2013 and a dispositive motion deadline of September 9, 2013. (ECF No. 70.) 

On January 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Dispute

Resolution. (ECF No. 74.) In it he sought responses to his Second Set Request for

Admissions and First Set Request for Production. Defendants’ February 6, 2013

Opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 75) asserted that responses to this discovery had

been served December 28, 2012. 

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff, acknowledging receipt of Defendants’ discovery

responses, filed a Motion to Dismiss Discovery Dispute Resolution (ECF No. 76),

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 15, 2013 Motion to

Compel Discovery (ECF No. 74) be DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 77 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 2