Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02644/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02644-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Zuri S. Young

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2644 LKK CMK P

vs.

Stratton, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

On June 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion. To Non-compliance by the

Defendants; Request for Docket Entry of All Events.” In his motion, plaintiff requested

sanctions against the defendants for “non-compliance, obstruction and failures to comply with

the court’s [discovery] order of August 9, 2004.” Although both parties have filed status reports,

and the court issued a discovery order, no scheduling order has been issued. 

Plaintiff alleges that he timely served the defendants’ counsel with a letter which

requested discovery documents and proposed a date for depositions. Plaintiff seems to allege

that defendants have not responded to his discovery requests. He also states that he has filed a

“motion for discovery, injunctive relief, status report of the case, summary judgment and default

judgment.” A review of the docket reveals that plaintiff did filed a motion on November 12,

2004, in which he sought to compel discovery that he allegedly had requested from defendants. 

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/18/05 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 has not filed motions for injunctive relief, summary judgment or default judgment,

although he did state in the “relief” section of his complaint that he sought injunctive relief and

summary judgment. Plaintiff has not, in his current motion for sanctions against defendant,

included copies of the written discovery requests allegedly served on defendants nor has he

indicated the dates that he propounded discovery on defendants or what discovery he sought. It

is impossible to determine if plaintiff did actually propound written discovery requests on

defendants and defendants failed to respond.

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for sanctions against defendants for

failing to respond to discovery requests is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. 

DATED: July 15, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/18/05 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

Case 2:03-cv-02644-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3