Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02145-7/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE J. MONTIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv02145 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 35)

Plaintiff Jesse J. Montiel (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s August 30, 2013, First Amended Complaint for deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Green, Taher-Pour, 

Wilson, Das and Wynn.

Defendants Taher-Pour and Wilson filed their answer on June 24, 2013. The remaining 

three Defendants have not yet been served.

On June 25, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Defendants 

moved for reconsideration of the order, which was denied on August 6, 2013.

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 39 Filed 10/18/13 Page 1 of 2
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

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his July 24, 2013, 

written discovery and initial disclosures pursuant to the Discovery Order. Defendants filed an 

opposition on September 25, 2013. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the motion is deemed 

submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

In their opposition, Defendants state that they provided initial disclosures on September 

16, 2013. Defendants also state that they served their responses to written discovery on August 

30, 2013, a day before the August 31, 2013, response date.

Accordingly, as it appears that Defendants have served the discovery at issue, Plaintiff’s 

motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-02145-LJO-DLB Document 39 Filed 10/18/13 Page 2 of 2