1. Plaintiff is presently confined in the Fayette State

Correctional Institution, Labelle, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No.

23). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ELIAS JIMENEZ, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-1029

:

vs. : (Complaint Filed 05/19/05)

:

: (Judge Muir)

YORK CITY POLICE DEPT., et al.,:

:

Defendants :

ORDER

May 1, 2006 

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff, an inmate formerly confined at York County

Jail, York, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Named as defendants in the

complaint are the York City Police Department, Detective

Jeff Spence and the Quick Response Team. Jimenez alleges

that the named defendants subjected him to excessive force

in effectuating his arrest. On August 8, 2005, defendants

York City Police Department and Detective Spence, filed an

answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 13). By Order dated

Case 4:05-cv-01029-MM-DB Document 38 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 4
2

February 10, 2006, this Court denied a motion to dismiss the

Quick Response Team. (Doc. No. 28). On February 15, 2006,

the Quick Response Team filed an answer to the complaint.

(Doc. No. 29). Discovery was to be completed by April 14,

2006 and dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed by May

15, 2006. (Doc. No. 24). 

Presently before the Court are the motions of defendants

York City Police Department and Detective Spence to compel

discovery responses from the plaintiff (Doc. No. 30), for an

enlargement of time to complete discovery; (Doc. No. 33);

and to take plaintiff's deposition. (Doc. No. 34). 

In support of their motion to compel, defendants state

that they served plaintiff with Interrogatories and a

Request for the Production of Documents at the York County

Prison, his address of record. (Doc. No. 31). On January

19, 2006, defendants' discovery requests were returned to

defense counsel because plaintiff no longer resided at the

address he provided to the Court. Id. Plaintiff was

subsequently located at his current address of record, SCIFayette, and, on January 19, 2006, defendants again served

plaintiff with their discovery requests. Id. Plaintiff was

Case 4:05-cv-01029-MM-DB Document 38 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 4
2. By Order dated May 23, 2005, this court directed the

parties' attention to the Local Rules of Court. (See Doc. No.

5). The Order referred specifically to an opposing party's

duty to file a brief in opposition to a motion within fifteen

(15) days after service of the movant's brief. See M.D. Pa.

Local Rule 7.6.

3

obligated to respond to the discovery requests on or before

February 24, 2006. Id. In a letter dated March 15, 2006,

defendants notified plaintiff that if he failed to respond

to their discovery requests by March 31, 2006, they would

file a motion to compel with the Court. Plaintiff failed to

acknowledge defendants' March 15, 2006, correspondence. Id.

Plaintiff's brief in opposition to defendants' motion to

compel is now long overdue, see 2 M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.6,

and plaintiff has neither made an appropriate filing nor

requested an extension of time in which to do so. Thus, the

Court will direct plaintiff to file a brief in opposition to

the defendants' motion to compel, and to show good cause why

he failed to respond to properly served discovery requests.

Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Order will

result in the dismissal of his action against defendants

York City Police Department and Detective Spence, pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b),for failure to prosecute and comply

Case 4:05-cv-01029-MM-DB Document 38 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 4
with a court order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file a brief in

opposition to defendants' motion to

compel on or before May 19, 2006. 

2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this

Court Order will result in the dismissal

of plaintiff's complaint against

defendants York City Police Department

and Detective Spence, pursuant to Rule

41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply

with a court order.

3. In light of the foregoing, defendants'

motions for an enlargement of the

discovery time and to take plaintiff's

deposition (Doc. Nos. 33, 34) are

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01029-MM-DB Document 38 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 4