Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01275/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01275-13/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT GARCIA, CASE NO. CV-F-05-1275 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

COMPEL AS MOOT 

Docs. 42, 43

vs.

McGUINNES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On October 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories and

a motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions. Defendants filed oppositions to the

motions on October 26, 2006. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint filed on October 7, 2005 against two health care

professionals and the Chief of Inmate Appeals at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in

Corcoran, California. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to

interrogatories and requests for admissions served on May 11, 2006.

In their opposition, defendants state that they served initial responses to the discovery on June

23, 2006 but at the time of the initial responses, plaintiff’s medical file was not available to them. After

Case 1:05-cv-01275-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 11/27/06 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

plaintiff wrote to defendants expressing his dissatisfaction with their responses, defendants responded

to him on July 21, 2006 by verifying the implied authorization by plaintiff for defendants to review his

medical file. Defendant’s Opposition, Exhibit “A.” Defendants thereafter subpoenaed plaintiff’s

medical file. Plaintiff granted defendants a 45-day extension of time in which to respond to the

discovery. Defendant’s Opposition, Exhibit “B.” Nevertheless, plaintiff filed the present motion on

October 16, 2006. Defendants served supplemental responses to the discovery on October 5, 2006 and

October 20, 2006. Defendant’s Opposition, Exhibit “C.” In light of plaintiff’s failure to reply to

defendants’ opposition, the Court assumes that plaintiff does not dispute defendants’ contentions.

Accordingly, based on defendants’ supplemental responses to the discovery, plaintiff’s motions

to compel further responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions are HEREBY DENIED as

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01275-OWW -DLB Document 49 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2