Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01755/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01755-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaun Darnell Garland
Plaintiff
Lindsey
Defendant
Nickell
Defendant
C. Stanley
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. STANLEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-1755-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

(ECF No. 39)

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

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 4.) The action 

proceeds against Defendants Lindsey, Nickell, Stanley, and John Doe on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. (ECF Nos. 6 & 8.) Defendants 

Lindsey, Nickell, and Stanley were served and have appeared in the action. (ECF Nos. 

12 & 15.) Defendant Doe has not been identified.

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his 

request for admissions. (ECF No. 22.) On August 5, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for 

summary judgment. On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery 

Case 1:12-cv-01755-AWI-MJS Document 40 Filed 02/13/15 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

and for an extension of time to oppose the summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 28.)

The Court ruled on Plaintiff’s discovery motions on February 2, 2015, and 

afforded Plaintiff until February 25, 2015 to file his opposition to the summary judgment 

motion. (ECF No. 37.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 9, 2015, motion to compel the discovery 

addressed in the Court’s February 2, 2015 order. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff’s motion is 

dated February 2, 2015, the same date as the Court’s order. Plaintiff presumably did not 

receive the Court’s order prior to filing his request.

As stated, the Court has ruled on these discovery requests. (ECF No. 37.) 

Plaintiff provides no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b); Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 

(9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s February 9, 2015 motion to compel discovery 

(ECF No. 39) is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01755-AWI-MJS Document 40 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2