Hackworth v. Rangel et al

Filing 62

ORDER DENYING 60 Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/25/2010. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC) Hackworth v. Rangel et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 ROBERT HACKWORTH, 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 P. RANGEL, 10 Defendant. 11 / 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 October 25, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Robert Hackworth ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting the Court to Order (Old Corcoran Prison) to Trun [sic] the Recorded Interview over to the Court that took place between Plaintiff and Battles." (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff appears to be asking the Court to compel Defendant to produce certain evidence relevant to this case. On November 10, 2009, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order that stated: "The parties are advised that the deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, shall be 7/10/2010." (ECF No. 44 7.) Plaintiff signed the instant motion on September 30, 2010, well after the discovery deadline had passed. (ECF No. 60.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is untimely. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. (ECF No. 60) O R D E R DENYI N G DISCOVERY MO T I O N FO R CASE NO. 1:06-cv-850-AW I-MJS (PC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Michael J. Seng Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?