Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01339-5/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

JUAN LEWIS GALLARDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. RAINWATER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1339 KJM CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims which remain arise under the Eighth Amendment 

against defendants Rainwater, Hougland, Pickens and Von Rader (defendants) for excessive 

force. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel. 

To the extent plaintiff is requesting that the court compel answers to discovery requests 

served by plaintiff after the March 3, 2015 deadline for serving discovery requests,1plaintiff’s 

request is denied as he never sought, nor obtained an extension, of the deadline. To the extent 

plaintiff is asking that defendants comply with the initial disclosure provisions of Federal Rule of 

 

1

 In the court’s January 14, 2015 scheduling and discovery order (ECF No. 17), the court 

informed the parties that all requests for discovery had to be served no later than 60 days prior to 

the May 1, 2015 discovery cutoff. On March 24, 2015, defendants were granted an extension of 

time to respond to certain discovery requests served upon defendants on February 17, 2015. At 

no time was the deadline for serving new requests extended. 

Case 2:14-cv-01339-CKD Document 40 Filed 11/09/15 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

Civil Procedure 26(a), plaintiff’s request is also denied as defendants are exempted from those 

provisions because plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. See Fed R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(1)(B)(iv). 

With respect to the remainder of plaintiff’s motion, plaintiff’s fails to adequately identify 

any discovery response by any defendant which is insufficient under the law. In order for this 

court to grant a motion to compel, plaintiff must identify a specific discovery request made by 

him, a defendant’s response thereto, and then plaintiff must show how the response is insufficient. 

Plaintiff has not done this. Instead, in his lengthy motion, he mostly discusses in generalities the 

information he believes defendants should forward him. Because plaintiff has not shown that any 

defendant has provided an insufficient response to a particular request for discovery, plaintiff’s 

motion to compel will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to 

compel (ECF No. 31) is denied.

Dated: November 9, 2015

1

ball1339.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01339-CKD Document 40 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 2