Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00437/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00437-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY LEE MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0437 LKK GGH P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is defendant Parra’s September 5, 2006, motion to compel and

for sanctions. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is denied.

On May 1, 2006, defendant served plaintiff with special interrogatories (set one)

and a request for production of documents (set one). On May 17, 2006, plaintiff served

defendant with a response to the discovery requests. Plaintiff’s responses lacked signatures and

verification. On May 22, 2006, defendant sent plaintiff a letter notifying him of the deficiencies

of his responses and inviting him to submit amended responses. Plaintiff did not respond to this

letter.

On July 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to

defendant’s discovery requests. On July 13, 2006, defendant filed a motion to compel. On July 

Case 2:05-cv-00437-LKK -GGH Document 53 Filed 11/21/06 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

2

24, 2006, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to serve defendant with his responses to the

discovery requests. On August 14, 2006, plaintiff filed his responses. Again, plaintiff’s

responses lacked signatures and verification.

On September 5, 2006, defendant filed a renewed motion to compel. Defendant

again argues that plaintiff did not provide him with responses containing signatures and

verification. On September 25, 2006, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. 

Plaintiff argues that he was unable to properly respond to defendant’s discovery requests due to

his mental problems which impair his ability to comprehend matters. Plaintiff states that at no

time did he refuse to respond to defendant’s discovery requests. On September 25, 2006,

plaintiff submitted a verified response to defendant’s discovery requests.

While plaintiff failed to respond to previous requests to provide verified and

signed responses, he has now done so. In light of the fact that plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding

pro se, and because plaintiff did not refuse to respond to defendant’s discovery requests, the court

finds that sanctions are not appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). However, plaintiff is

cautioned not to fail to respond appropriately in the future. Plaintiff’s actions have unnecessarily

taken the court’s and defendants counsels’ time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s September 5, 2006,

motion to compel is denied as moot; defendant’s September 5, 2006, motion for sanctions is

denied.

DATED: 11/20/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

mat437.com

Case 2:05-cv-00437-LKK -GGH Document 53 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2