Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 6331 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 357.) 

 Scott Stearns (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel discovery. 

As in prior Motions, Plaintiff does not indicate in his Motion what discovery he seeks to

compel. He makes only a general statement that he has been attempting to obtain certain

documents without success. In addition, despite being informed repeatedly that Plaintiff must

comply with pertinent rules regarding discovery, Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the

Rule 37(a)(2)(A) certification requirement. 

The Court’s Discovery and Scheduling order issued November 15, 2005, stated

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 358 Filed 01/24/06 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

specifically that all discovery was to comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26,

and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 11-110, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 5-134, 5-

135, 6-136, 43-140 and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States Court. 

Rule 37(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion to

compel contain certification that the moving party has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to

confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court

intervention. Although the Motion before contains a certification, it is a certification that

Plaintiff has been trying to obtain various documents from the “A.G. Offices, over the last five

years.” It does not contain the necessary statement that Plaintiff has attempted to resolve this

matter with opposing counsel prior to seeking assistance from the Court. 

Accordingly, as the Motion fails to comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, the Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 358 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2