Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06318/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06318-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JONES, SR., CASE NO. CV-F-04-6318 OWW DLB P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

Plaintiffs, MOTION TO COMPEL

vs. [Docs. 36-2]

ANGEL MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This action is proceeding against defendant Martinez on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed

September 27, 2004. Now pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel, filed August 30,

2006. Plaintiff filed no opposition or statement of no opposition to the motion.

I. Discussion

The discovery phase of this litigation was opened by court order on March 8, 2006. On May

23, 2006, defendant served plaintiff with Interrogatories (Set No. 1) and a Request for Production (Set.

No.1). Declaration of James J. Arendt, ¶ 2. The discovery was returned in the mail. Id. On June 16,

2006, counsel for defendant received a letter from plaintiff, stating that his address changed to the

Merced County Jail on April 26, 2006. Id. As a courtesy, on June 28, 2006, defendant re-served the

written discovery. Id. On July 18, 2006, counsel sent plaintiff a letter stating that responses to the

Case 1:04-cv-06318-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/09/06 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

27

28

2

written discovery were due on August 14, 2006 and that if responses were not received, a motion to

compel, including a request for sanctions would be filed. Declaration of James J. Arendt, ¶ 3. As of

the date of filing this motion, defendant has not received responses to the discovery. Id. 

After reviewing the record, the Court finds that the discovery requests and the motion to compel

were properly served on plaintiff. Despite this, plaintiff did not respond to either the requests or the

motion to compel. 

Accordingly, defendant’s August 30, 2006 motion to compel responses to written discovery is

HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve written responses, without objections, within twenty days

from the date of service of this order. Within twenty days of this Order, plaintiff shall also file a

response to defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $496.50. Plaintiff is expressly warned

that the failure to serve responses in compliance with this order and failure to file a response to

defendant’s request for sanctions, will result in the imposition of sanctions deemed appropriate by this

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 9, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06318-LJO -DLB Document 38 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2