Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05169/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05169-17/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

CLIFTONE SEMEDO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CARLOS GALVAN, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-5169 OWW DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES

(DOC 52)

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

against defendants Galvan and Cervantes for allegedly using excessive force on June 8, 2001, in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel

responses to requests for production of documents. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on

June 19, 2007.

Plaintiff contends defendants did not fully respond to his request for production of

documents, set one. Defendants contend they responded to each request and provided plaintiff with

all relevant, non-privileged information in their possession. 

Case 1:03-cv-05169-DLB Document 74 Filed 03/17/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B), a party may move for an order

compelling responses to discovery. The moving party bears the burden to demonstrate actual and

substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery and the opposing party must support each ground

on which it refused discovery. 

In response to discovery and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants

represent that they have fully responded and provided all documents in their possession, custody or

control. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that an order compelling further response is warranted.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05169-DLB Document 74 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2