Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00178/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00178-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERWIN JULES JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00178-OWW-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

(Doc. 40)

Plaintiff Derwin Jules Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a

motion to compel. (Doc. #40.) Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on May 11,

2010. (Doc. #43.)

Plaintiff’s two-page motion to compel asserts that Defendants failed to fully answer

Plaintiff’s interrogatories. However, Plaintiff fails to specifically identify how Defendants’

responses were deficient. Plaintiff also requests that Defendants produce the documents he

requested in his interrogatories. However, Plaintiff does not specifically identify any document

production request or explain how Defendants’ response to any particular requests was inadequate

or unjustified. Plaintiff does not provide any arguments in support of his motion to compel.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff is advised that he may not file

a motion to compel that generally states that all of Defendants’ responses were inadequate without

explaining how and why the responses were inadequate. Plaintiff must address each request

individually by reproducing the original request made by Plaintiff and reproducing the response or

1

Case 1:07-cv-00178-DAD-GSA Document 44 Filed 06/28/10 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

objections raised by Defendants to that request. For each request and response being challenged,

Plaintiff must present persuasive arguments that demonstrate why and how each objection is not

justified.

Further, the Court notes that Defendants did not produce any documents because Plaintiff

did not submit proper document production requests. Instead, Plaintiff vaguely appended the phrase

“production of documents requested” to the end of some of his interrogatories. For example, one

of Plaintiff's interrogatories asked Defendants to:

[i]dentify and describe name(s), titles, and duties of all persons,

employees, officers, directors, agents, or representatives or other

defendants who has the responsibility for scheduling of visits behind

glass while Plaintiff was serving his SHU term from September

through December, 2004. Production of documents requested.

(Mot. for an Order Compelling Discovery Ex. B, at 5:27-6:3, ECF No. 40.) Defendants responded

to Plaintiff’s requests as if they were interrogatories--likely due to the fact that Plaintiff’s requests

were woefully inadequate when interpreted as document production requests. 

When requesting the production of documents, Plaintiff “must describe with reasonable

particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

34(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff has failed to identify the documents with reasonable particularity. Merely

adding the phrase “production of documents requested” at the end of an interrogatory provides little

to no guidance to Defendants as to what documents are being sought by Plaintiff.

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel fails to set forth any argument to explain how 

Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were inadequate. Further, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s document production

requests were inadequate. Accordingly, it is HEREBYORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00178-DAD-GSA Document 44 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 2