Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238-13/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

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P

vs.

LIEUTENANT J. FLIINT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s April 6, 2007, motion for an extension

of time to conduct discovery and three motions to compel.

The discovery deadline is June 8, 2007. Plaintiff argues that his ability to conduct

discovery was hampered by his recent transfer. Plaintiff’s motions to compel indicate that

plaintiff has had adequate opportunity to conduct discovery. Accordingly, this request is denied.

The pending motions to compel were filed on May 11, 2007, and May 14, 2007. 

On May 22, 2007, defendants filed an opposition to these motions. The motions concern

defendants’ responses to requests for production of documents and interrogatories. Plaintiff

argues that defendants refused to provide a “complete and full response” to almost all of the

interrogatories served on defendants. Plaintiff also argues that responses to almost all of the 

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 05/31/07 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

2

interrogatories and requests for production of documents are incomplete and evasive. Attached

to the motion to compel are copies of defendants’ responses to the discovery requests.

As observed by defendants in their opposition, plaintiff provides no specific

argument in support of his motions. For example, plaintiff argues that responses to

interrogatories nos. 1-25 by defendants Flint, Kernan, Holmes, O’Brian, Blackburna nd Yubarra

are incomplete, but makes no other argument in support of this contention. In essence, plaintiff

is asking the court to make his argument for him. It is not the court’s duty to review the response

of each defendant to each discovery request in order to determine whether a response is somehow

inadequate. It is plaintiff’s burden to describe why a particular response is inadequate. It is not

enough to generally argue that all responses are incomplete. For these reasons, the motions to

compel are denied.

In the motions to compel, plaintiff also requests permission to serve more than 25

interrogatories. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to exceed the 25 interrogatory limit set forth

in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s April 6, 2007, motion to extend the discovery deadline is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s motions to compel filed May 11, 2007 (nos. 50, 51), and May 14,

2007 (no. 53), are denied. 

DATED: 5/31/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

will1238.com

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 2