Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02349/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02349-19/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE E. JACOBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUINONES, et al ,

Defendants.

1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT (PC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AS 

PREMATURE 

(Doc. 89)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. This action is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint for Plaintiff's Eighth 

Amendment claims against Defendants Does #1-3, Pruitt, Magana, and Davis for deprivation of 

basic necessities; against Defendants Cogdill, Scaiffe, Quinones, and Davis for excessive force; 

and against Defendants Bardonnex and Williams for depriving Plaintiff of yard time. (Docs. 11, 

17, 19, 24.) 

On August 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to compel Defendants to respond to 

discovery he propounded. (Doc. 89.) Defendants filed their opposition. (Doc. 92.) Despite 

more than sufficient lapse of time, Plaintiff neither replied, nor requested an extension of time to 

do so. The motion is deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l).

In his motion, Plaintiff delineates the history of his service of various discovery requests 

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 101 Filed 10/23/14 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

on Defendants, on which they moved for and received a protective order along with various 

extensions of time to prepare and serve their responses on Plaintiff. (Doc. 89, 2:24-4:8.) 

However, as accurately noted in Defendants' opposition (Doc. 92), Plaintiff did not include the 

most recent extension of time that they received which granted them up to and including 

September 2, 2014 to serve their responses on Plaintiff. (See Doc. 85.) 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, filed on 

August 27, 2014 (Doc. 89), be DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02349-AWI-JLT Document 101 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 2