Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01370-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to produce a copy of 

the incident report pertaining to the incident Plaintiff challenges in this action. (Doc. 26.) 

However, the Court did not issue the Discovery and Scheduling Order until September 20, 2016. 

(Doc. 30.) Thus, discovery was not permitted to begin until after that date and, as a result, the

motion to compel is procedurally improper.

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff sought an extension of time “to produce “exculpatory 

evidence.” (Doc. 27.) There are no current deadlines for Plaintiff to file any documents with the 

court. Further, as stated in the First Informational Order (Doc. 3, p. 3), the Court will not serve as 

a repository for evidence. Plaintiff may not file evidence (prison, disciplinary or medical 

records, witness affidavits, etc.) unless in support of a properly noticed motion or upon the 

Court’s order. (Id.) Plaintiff is reminded that evidence improperly submitted will be stricken. 

(Id.)

JOSE A. ORTIZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GARZA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL; DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

PRODUCE “EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE;” and 

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

(Docs. 26, 27, 29)

Case 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 09/28/16 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

On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Response” to Defendant’s Answer. (Doc. 29.) 

However, Plaintiff does not have a right to file a response to Defendant’s Answer under the Local 

Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to do so. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents from Defendant, filed on 

August 18, 2016 (Doc. 26), is DENIED ;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file evidence, filed on August 22, 

2016 (Doc. 27), is DISREGARDED;

3. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Answer, filed on August 24, 2016 (Doc. 29), is 

STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01370-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2