Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-12/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 Defendants Han and Gonzales have not been located and served yet. Defendant Dwivedi waived service 1

but has not yet made an appearance in this action.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00088-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL, AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFF TO SERVE RESPONSES TO

DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY REQUESTS

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 47)

Plaintiff Vance Blaine (“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 is proceeding on plaintiff’s

amended complaint, filed September 5, 2005, against defendants Wu, Han, Gonzales, Bhatt,

Dwivedi, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney for acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 15.) On December 18, 2006, defendants Wu,

Bhatt, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney (“defendants”) filed a motion for a court order compelling

plaintiff to respond to their interrogatories and request for the production of documents, served on

October 3, 2006. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff did not file a response. Local Rule 78-230(m). 1

In civil rights actions filed in this court by prisoners proceeding pro se, discovery may not

be conducted until the court issues its scheduling and discovery order, which does not occur until

an answer is filed. (Doc. 7, ¶8.) The scheduling and discovery order was not issued in this case until

October 27, 2006. (Doc. 38.) Accordingly, defendants prematurely served their discovery requests

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 51 Filed 01/26/07 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

2

on plaintiff. However, plaintiff at no time sought clarification or an extension of time from the court,

and plaintiff did not respond to defendants’ motion to compel. Defendants are entitled to seek

discovery from plaintiff and plaintiff may not ignore their requests. To that end, plaintiff shall be

required to serve responses to defendants’ discovery requests. 

Defendants request that plaintiff be required to respond within fifteen days. Given that

plaintiff is incarcerated, fifteen days is likely not sufficient to allow plaintiff to draft and serve

responses. In light of that reality and in light of the fact that defendants prematurely served their

discovery requests, plaintiff will be given thirty days within which to respond. Plaintiff is warned

that the failure to cooperate during discovery, including the failure to comply with this order, will

result in the imposition of sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), (d). Should plaintiff need additional

time, he must file a motion seeking an extension of time and support the motion with a showing of

good cause. Plaintiff may not disregard this order or defendants’ discovery requests. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel, filed December 18, 2006, is GRANTED;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall serve

defendants’ counsel with responses to defendants’ interrogatories and request for the

production of documents; and

3. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to cooperate during discovery, including the failure

to comply with this order, will result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 51 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 2