Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00055/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00055-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Archie Cranford
Plaintiff
Christina Crawford
Defendant

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINA CRAWFORD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES (ECF 

No. 50), AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF No. 55)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint against Defendant Christina Crawford for inadequate medical care 

in violation of his substantive Due Process rights. 

On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to “compel response (sic) to case 

questionare” (sic), seeking to compel responses to interrogatories propounded by 

Plaintiff in March 2016. (ECF No. 50.) On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled 

“Motion Discovery and Sanctions” seeking sanctions against Defendant for failing to 

respond to the same set of interrogatories. (ECF No. 55.) On May 6, 2016, Defendant

filed an opposition asking this Court to deny both motions on the grounds that Plaintiff 

seeks responses to discovery requests that were untimely served. (ECF No. 57.)

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 60 Filed 05/17/16 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

The deadline for the completion of discovery, including motions to compel 

discovery, was April 5, 2015. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff presents no reason why he should 

be permitted to compel responses to discovery requests filed nearly one year after the 

discovery deadline has lapsed. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 55) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS Document 60 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2