Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02299/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02299-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2299 GEB KJM P

vs.

D. MCCARGAR, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three matters are before the court.

1. Motion For Recusal

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the undersigned recuse. Plaintiff has

presented no legal cause for recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. His request will be denied.

2. Motion To Compel

On May 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking that defendants be ordered to

respond to his “First Set of Interrogatories Combined With Request For Production Of

Documents.” Defendants assert they should not have to respond to any of the discovery requests

in this document because:

///// 

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 53 Filed 12/18/06 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

2

Plaintiff lumped all of his interrogatories and requests for

production into one document without clearly designating which

interrogatories were common and which only applied to a specific

party. 

Opp’n at 2:11:13.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s “First Set of Interrogatories . . .” Defendants’

objection is not well taken. Of all the interrogatories, only numbers 1-3 are not directed at

specific defendants. Interrogatories 1-3 are the sort of “common questions” provided for by the

treatise defendants point to. The omission of a heading to more clearly identify the questions as

“common,” when such a heading is not required by the Federal Rules or controlling Ninth

Circuit authority, is a technical violation at best that should not stand between plaintiff and a

straightforward response from defendants. 

Plaintiff requests that defendants be sanctioned for their failure to answer

plaintiff’s “First Set of Interrogatories . . .” The court finds that, under the circumstances, an

award of sanctions is unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(a). No sanctions will be awarded in

connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel.

3. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment 

On August 16, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In light of

the fact that defendants will be ordered to respond to some of plaintiff’s interrogatories,

defendants’ motion will be denied without prejudice to renewal no earlier than sixty days and no

later than ninety days from the date of this order.

Also, the court will vacate the dates established in the court’s March 24, 2006

scheduling order for the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference and trial. Those dates

will be reset later, if necessary.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 13, 2006 request that the undersigned recuse is denied.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 53 Filed 12/18/06 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

3

2. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2006 motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part

as follows:

A. Within twenty days, defendants shall respond to common

interrogatories 1-3, and each defendant shall respond to each other

interrogatory in plaintiff’s “First Set of Interrogatories. . .” that is directed

to that defendant. 

B. Plaintiff’s motion is denied in all other respects.

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to

renewal no earlier than sixty days and no later than ninety days from the date of this order. 

Plaintiff also may file a motion for summary judgment during this time frame. 

4. The dates established in the court’s March 24, 2006 scheduling order for the

filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference and trial are vacated. Those dates will be reset

later, if necessary.

DATED: December 15, 2006.

1

chap2299.57

Case 2:02-cv-02299-GEB -KJM Document 53 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3