Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00107/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00107-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

 Officer Mairs is mentioned in the body of the complaint, not in the caption, and Nelson did not attempt to serve

1

Mairs. (See Doc. 1; see generally docket sheet). The United States District Court was dismissed as a defendant on February

9, 2006. (Doc. 4, p. 3).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON FREDERIC NELSON, CASE NO. 1:06-cv-0107 AWI TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 17)

vs.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

etc. et al, (Doc. 20)

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

WITHDRAW MOTION FOR EXPENSES 

Defendants. (Doc. 21)

 /

Plaintiff Jon Frederic Nelson, proceeding pro se, commenced the instant civil rights action,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on February 2, 2006. (Doc. 1). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s

civil rights were violated when he was falsely arrested byOfficer Mairs of the Bishop Police Department

(“BPD”) and incarcerated in the Inyo County Jail for ten days. (Id.). Defendants filed separate answers 1

to the complaint in which they admitted some of Plaintiff’s allegations, denied others, and claimed that

they lacked knowledge to respond to the remaining counts. (Docs. 8, 10). Both Defendants raised

numerous affirmative defenses. (Id.). 

On January 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Answer Objections of Interrogatories by

Defendants Attorney Richard R. Clouse,” pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a), construed

Case 1:06-cv-00107-DLB Document 24 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Richard Clouse is one of the attorneys representing BPD. (See docket sheet). 2

2

as a motion to compel BPD to answer the interrogatories propounded on it. (Doc. 17). In his motion, 2

Plaintiff contends that BPD objected to the interrogatories to the extent that they were directed to BPD

Officers Doug Mairs and Kris Nelsen. (Id. at p. 1). On January 22, 2007, BPD moved for a protective

order to preclude Plaintiff from propounding interrogatories on non-parties. (Doc. 20). BPD also filed

a motion for expenses and attorneys fees that it had incurred by responding to Plaintiff’s motion to

compel, preparing its motion for a protective order, conferring with Plaintiff, and attending the hearing

on the three motions. (Doc. 21). 

On February 5, 2007, the motions came on for a telephonic hearing at 9:30 a.m. before the

Honorable Theresa A. Goldner, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Jon Frederic Nelson appeared

on behalf of himself, Attorneys Richard Clouse and Jonathan D. Holub appeared on behalf of BPD, and

Attorney John Kirby appeared on behalf of Inyo County. The Court first addressed Plaintiff’s motion

to comply and found that it had not been filed in accordance with the procedural requirements set forth

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules the Eastern District of California.

Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. The Court next found that BPD’s

motion for a protective order also was due to be denied without prejudice because the Court, which had

not been provided a copy of the interrogatories, could not determine whether a protective order was

warranted. BPD subsequently withdrew its motion for expenses. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff Jon Frederic Nelson’s motion to comply is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 17);

2. Defendant Bishop Police Department’s motion for a protective orderis DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE (Doc. 20);

3. Defendant Bishop Police Department’s request to withdraw its motion for expenses is

GRANTED, and the motion is WITHDRAWN (Doc. 21); and

///

Case 1:06-cv-00107-DLB Document 24 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

4. The parties to this action are INSTRUCTED to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District of California Local Rules, especially those relating to

discovery, disclosure, and the obligations to meet and confer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00107-DLB Document 24 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3