Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02942-10/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATIONS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 17, 2021, the court issued an order extending the deadline to file 

motions to compel to October 25, 2021. ECF No. 47. On November 12, 2021, the court received 

plaintiff’s motion to compel, which reflects that it was submitted for mailing on November 7, 

2021. ECF No. 49 at 5. Even affording plaintiff the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule, see 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is 

deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for mailing), his 

motion is thirteen days late and is not accompanied by a request for leave to file the motion 

untimely or an explanation as to why he was unable to timely file the motion. 

 The court further notes that while the motion identifies a significant number of responses 

with which plaintiff takes issue, plaintiff fails to specify how each response or objection is 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 50 Filed 11/17/21 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 

deficient beyond a general assertion that defendants have used “excuses for their failures that the 

courts have ruled are inadequate.” ECF No. 49 at 2-3. 

The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same 

standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 

moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of 

which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, 

for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not 

justified. 

Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). A brief review of the responses provided by 

plaintiff shows that a number of his requests were responded to despite any objections, and that a 

significant portion of the responses to the disputed requests for production indicate that no 

responsive documents exist or could be located or that responsive documents are not in 

defendants’ possession, custody, or control. Id. at 6-86. Without further elaboration from 

plaintiff as to why defendants’ responses are deficient or their objections are not justified, he has 

failed to meet his burden in bringing a motion to compel and the court is unable to evaluate the 

sufficiency of defendants’ responses or the appropriateness of their objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 49, 

is DENIED. 

DATED: November 17, 2021 

Case 2:18-cv-02942-KJM-AC Document 50 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2