Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01714/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01714-11/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

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL 

(ECF No. 20)

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) The Attorney General made a special appearance on 

behalf of putative unnamed defendants. No other parties have appeared in the action.

The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found it stated cognizable Eighth 

Amendment medical indifference claims against John Does 1 and 2. (ECF Nos. 10 & 

12.) The Court opened discovery for the limited purpose of identifying the Doe 

defendants. In relation to such discovery, the Court ordered officials at Wasco State 

Prison to provide to the Court specified information for in camera review. (ECF No. 18.) 

Such documents were produced to the Court. The instant motion to compel followed.1

(ECF No. 20.) 

 

1

Events subsequent to this motion to compel will be addressed by the Court in a separate order. 

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/12/16 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

Plaintiff states in his motion that he did not receive the documents the Court 

ordered produced for in camera review. He asks that Defendants be compelled to 

produce said documents.

The Court directed prison officials to submit specified documents directly to the 

Court. The prison complied with this directive. It was not required to produce any 

documents directly to Plaintiff. There is no basis for compelling a further response.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01714-DAD-MJS Document 30 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2