Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01639/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01639-7/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIAN M. AQUINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. GOODWIN UGWVEZE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01639-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER RE MOTIONS

(Docs. 35, 36, 39)

Plaintiff Dorian M. Aquino (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 26, Plaintiff filed a

motion to compel. (Doc. #36.) Plaintiff filed a second, similar motion to compel on April 9, 2010. 

(Doc. #39.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s first motion to compel on March 31, 2010. 

(Doc. #37.) On March 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Settlement.” (Doc. #35.)

I. Discussion

A. Motions to Compel

Plaintiff’s motions to compel requests that the Court compel Defendants to produce certain

documents relevant to this litigation. Plaintiff’s motions are procedurally deficient and will be

denied. Plaintiff has failed to present critical facts that would enable the Court to evaluate whether

Plaintiff’s requests were appropriate or whether Defendants’ objections were justified. Plaintiff did

not attach the original document production request that he served on Defendants to his motion. 

Plaintiff did not attach Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s document production request to his

///

1

Case 1:08-cv-01639-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/07/10 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

27

28

motion. Plaintiff has not addressed Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s requests and has not made

any attempt to demonstrate how Defendants’ objections are unjustified.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s motion to compel refers to requests that Plaintiff has

not propounded on the Defendants. Plaintiff may not file a motion to compel production of a

document that he has not yet requested from Defendants directly.

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is encouraged to make a good

faith effort to meet and confer with Defendants to resolve any disputes without the Court’s

assistance. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). If the parties are unable to resolve the

discovery disputes, Plaintiff may re-file a motion to compel. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that filing a motion to compel that is not substantially justified may result in

an order requiring Plaintiff to pay Defendants for the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing

Plaintiff’s motion, including attorney’s fees. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B).

If Plaintiff chooses to file a motion to compel, Plaintiff is advised that such motion must

individually address each request made by Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not file a motion to compel that

generally and vaguely argues that all of Defendants’ responses are unjustified. Plaintiff may not file

a motion to compel that fails to reproduce Plaintiff’s original request to the Defendants and

Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff must address each request individually by

reciting the original request made by Plaintiff and reciting the response or objections raised by

Defendants to that request. For each request and response being challenged, Plaintiff must present

persuasive arguments that demonstrate why each objection made by Defendants is not justified. 

Plaintiff must also attach a copy of his original discovery requests and a copy of Defendants’

responses to his motion to compel. Finally, Plaintiff may not propound new document production

requests through a motion to compel.

B. Motion for Settlement

Plaintiff’s March 19, 2010 “Motion for Settlement” simply states that “Plaintiff Dorian M.

Aquino requesting[sic] an out of court settlement for case # 1:08-cv-01639-AWI-DLB (PC).” 

Plaintiff cannot unilaterally request settlement of this case. Both parties must agree to the terms of

settlement. Further, the Court will not orderthe parties to attend a settlement conference unless both

2

Case 1:08-cv-01639-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/07/10 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

27

28

parties consent. Plaintiff is advised to communicate with Defendants regarding Defendants’

amenability to a settlement. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed on March 26, 2010 and April 9, 2010, are

DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Settlement,” filed on March 19, 2010, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01639-AWI -SMS Document 40 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 3