Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01238-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Mendenhall
Defendant
Justin Jay Wise
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUSTIN JAY WISE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A. MENDENHALL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1238 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests summons forms for witnesses he plans to call at trial and for a 

trial date to be set. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel defendant to answer 

interrogatories. ECF No. 24. 

 The court has not yet set a trial date in this case and a trial date will not be set until after 

any motions for summary judgment are decided or the time for filing such motions has passed. 

Plaintiff will be notified if and when a trial date is set and his request for a trial date is denied as 

premature. Since it is unclear at this time whether the case will go to trial, plaintiff’s request for 

summonses is also denied as premature. Plaintiff may resubmit his request if and when a trial is 

scheduled in this case. 

 Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel defendant Mendenhall to respond to interrogatories. 

ECF No. 24. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer if a party 

Case 2:15-cv-01238-TLN-AC Document 25 Filed 10/26/16 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

fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 33. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii). 

The court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same 

standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 

moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of 

which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel 

and, for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not 

justified. 

Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). Plaintiff’s motion does not identify the 

specific requests and responses at issue or why the responses are insufficient, and is therefore 

denied without prejudice to a motion in the proper form. In order for the court to consider 

plaintiff’s motion to compel, plaintiff must (1) reproduce the requests at issue, (2) reproduce 

defendant’s responses to the requests, and (3) include a statement explaining why each response 

given is insufficient. Plaintiff may either re-write each request and response or provide a copy of 

the responses defendant sent him if they also include the request. 

If plaintiff needs an extension of time in order to file a motion to compel, he should file a 

motion requesting an extension of time before the deadline to file a motion to compel expires. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (the court may for good cause, extend the time if a request is made 

before the time to file a motion expires). A motion for extension of time should inform the court 

how much time he needs to file a motion to compel and explain why he needs that amount of 

time. The current deadline for filing a motion to compel is November 18, 2016. ECF No. 19 at 5. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for summonses and a trial date (ECF No. 23) is denied as 

premature.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 24) is denied without prejudice to a motion in 

the proper form.

DATED: October 25, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01238-TLN-AC Document 25 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2