Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00163-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Scott Hounihan
Plaintiff
Jose C. Villasenor
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

JASON SCOTT HOUNIHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE C. VILLASENOR,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00163-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 47)

Plaintiff Jason Scott Hounihan is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment sexual assault claim against Defendant Villasenor. (ECF No. 5).

In a motion dated October 29, 2029, Plaintiff states that he sent his first set of 

interrogatories to Defendant on September 10, 2023, and the 45-day deadline to respond has 

expired. (ECF No. 47). He requests an unspecified sanction. 

The Court will deny the motion without prejudice.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff is correct that “[r]esponses to written discovery requests 

shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request is first served.” (ECF No. 34, p. 3). However, it 

is not clear from Plaintiff’s motion when the responses were served and if any delay is due to 

mail processing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) (noting that service by mail is “complete upon 

mailing”). 

Case 1:23-cv-00163-KES-EPG Document 48 Filed 11/03/23 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

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery responses, his motion fails 

to comply with the requirements of the scheduling order: “[A motion to compel] should include a 

copy of the request(s) and any response to the request(s) at issue.” (ECF No. 34, p. 5). 

Further, the Court directs Plaintiff to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which generally 

governs motions to compel and sanctions. Should Plaintiff file a future motion to compel or 

sanctions, he should provide developed argument as to what specific information he seeks to 

compel or what sanctions he seeks and why they are appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) 

(noting that a motion must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking [an] order”). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 47) is 

denied without prejudice. 

If Plaintiff still has not received responses to his discovery requests, he may refile a 

motion for sanctions, which should include the additional requirements set forth in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00163-KES-EPG Document 48 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 2