Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05767/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-05767-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN ANTHONY FULTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

E. MADRUGA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

)

CV F 97-5767 OWW DLB P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

(DOC 311)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Plaintiff filed this case in 1997 alleging that he was

subjected to excessive force and deprived of medical attention during an incident which occurred

on November 8, 1996 at Corcoran State Prison. This case is scheduled for a jury trial on March

7, 2006. On August 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to conduct additional discovery. On

August 23, 2005, the Court ordered defendants to respond to plaintiff’s motion. Defendants filed

an opposition to the motion on September 13, 2005.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the discovery deadline in this case expired

on March 17, 2000. (Order, filed February 22, 2000). Plaintiff now seeks to re-open discovery

on the grounds that he is “entitled to discovery of relevant evidence which could lead to

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 320 Filed 10/20/05 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

admissible evidence for trial purposes.” Plaintiff asserts that during the discovery process, he

propounded several requests for production of documents which were never produced by

defendants. Plaintiff also seeks permission to propound interrogatories designed to elicit

information that will identify and disclose the documents plaintiff is seeking.

 A party may obtain relief from the discovery cut-off only upon a showing of good

cause. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to reopen

discovery, years after the deadline. Both parties have engaged in extensive discovery and

multiple dispositive motions have been filed and ruled upon. Even after the discovery cut-off,

the parties continued to litigate various motions to compel which have now been resolved. 

Plaintiff offers no excuse for his failure to pursue the discovery in connection with the earlier

motions to compel. Nor does he explain the failure to seek leave to propound the additional

interrogatories at an earlier date. The Court finds no justification to further delay this case. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct additional discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-05767-OWW -DLB Document 320 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2