Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00547/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00547-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP ALLISON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0547 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. KHOURY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are four motions to compel filed by plaintiff on

December 21, 2006. For the following reasons, these motions are denied.

Pursuant to the October 6, 2006, scheduling order, all requests for discovery were

to be served no later than sixty days prior to December 22, 2006. Sixty days prior to December

22, 2006, was October 23, 2006. Attached to the motions to compel are proofs of service for

each of the at-issue discovery requests. The proofs of service for all discovery requests indicate

that they were served on defendants on October 24, 2006. Defendants objected to the discovery

requests on grounds that they were untimely.

Plaintiff did not seek court permission to serve his discovery requests past

October 23, 2006. For this reason, defendants’ objection that the requests are untimely is wellCase 2:05-cv-00547-GEB-GGH Document 58 Filed 02/28/07 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

2

founded. On this ground, the motions to compel are denied.

On December 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for law library access. Plaintiff

alleged that he required additional law library access in order to prepare more motions to compel. 

Because the discovery deadline has passed, the motion for law library access so that plaintiff may

file more motions to compel is denied.

On February 7, 2007, defendants filed a summary judgment motion. Because of

the outstanding discovery requests, plaintiff may have been confused regarding his obligation to

file an opposition. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff an extension of time to file his

opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel filed December 21, 2006 (court doc. nos. 52, 53,

54, 55) are denied;

2. Plaintiff’s December 20, 2006, motion for law library access is denied;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file his opposition

to defendants’ summary judgment motion.

DATED: 2/28/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

all547.com

Case 2:05-cv-00547-GEB-GGH Document 58 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2