Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01745-5/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

GEORGE I. JOHNSON, No. CIV S-06-1745-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SCOT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 20), filed on

May 4, 2007. 

In his motion, plaintiff asserts that defendants have not provided adequate

responses to his discovery requests. Specifically, and according to the documents attached to

plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff seeks further responses to: (1) request for production of documents

dated April 3, 2007; (2) interrogatories dates April 3, 2007; (3) supplemental request for

production of documents dated April 12, 2007. Plaintiff has provided a proof of service on

defendants of the two April 3, 2007, discovery requests, but not for the April 12, 2007, request. 

He has also attached defendant Kernan’s response to his request for production of documents

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 21 Filed 05/24/07 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

dated April 16, 2007, but has not attached any other responses from defendants. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is procedurally defective. In particular, plaintiff has

not provided the court with copies of the disputed discovery responses. The only response from

defendants submitted with plaintiff’s motion is defendant Kernan’s response to a request for

production of documents. However, that response does not correlate to any of the discovery

requests attached to plaintiff’s motion and which plaintiff asserts are the subject of his motion. 

For example, defendant Kernan’s response indicates that the first request for production sought

the names, titles, and duties of all staff members who are named in the complaint. None of the

discovery requests provided by plaintiff, however, seeks this information. For this court to

evaluate a motion to compel further discovery responses, the moving party must submit both the

discovery request at issue as well as the allegedly deficient response to that request. Because

plaintiff has not done so, his motion to compel must be denied.

In his motion to compel, plaintiff also seeks modification of the scheduling order

to allow time for supplemental responses from defendants. Because the court is not ordering

supplemental responses, the request for modification of the scheduling order is moot. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 20) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for modification of the scheduling order is denied. 

DATED: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01745-MCE -CMK Document 21 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2