Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01404-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Samuels
Defendant
Jesse Washington
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendant Samuels filed an 

opposition on May 15, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 29, 2015. In accordance with the 

Court’s June 2, 2015, order, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s reply. (ECF No. 44.) 

On June 18, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel finding that Defendants by 

way of supplemental responses had adequately responded to Plaintiff’s discovery at issue in his 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 45.)

On June 29, 2015, and July 2, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed “objections” indicating that 

Defendant’s responses were not adequate and did not properly address his discovery requests. On July 

22, 2015, the Court directed Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s objections. 

JESSE WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMUELS, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR COURT TO ENFORCE 

DISCOVERY ORDER OF JULY 22, 2015

[ECF No. 55]

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 56 Filed 08/21/15 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

Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on August 13, 2015. (ECF No. 52.) 

Defendant submits that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry there are no additional 

responsive documents aside from those previously produced by Defendant. (ECF No. 44, Ex. A.) 

On August 17, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s supplement 

response provided no basis to modify the prior order. (ECF No. 54.) 

On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to enforce the discovery order issued 

July 22, 2015. (ECF No. 55.) 

Inasmuch as the Court has addressed and denied Plaintiff’s objections to the prior discovery 

order, Plaintiff’s present motion for enforcement of such order is MOOT and is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01404-SAB Document 56 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 2