Pruitt v. Clark, et al.

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/19/11. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM B. PRUITT, 10 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01709-AWI-SKO PC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT v. (Doc. 29) 12 CLARK, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff William B. Pruitt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 16 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 26, 2007. This action is proceeding 17 against Defendants Swinford, Bonilla, Lara, Curtiss, and Wan on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment strip 18 search claim.1 On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his interrogatories, 19 set one, served on Defendant Swinford. Defendant Swinford filed an opposition on May 18, 2011. 20 Defendant Swinford is in the process of preparing supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s full 21 set of interrogatories, which will include information not available at the time the initial responses 22 were prepared. Were the Court to reach Plaintiff’s motion on the merits and find in his favor, the 23 Court would order Defendant Swinford to serve supplemental responses. In light of the fact that 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1 Identified as Defendants Swimford and Laura in the amended complaint. 1 1 Defendant Swinford is currently undertaking that very process, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot 2 and there is no justification for an expenditure of resources to reach the merits.2 3 If she has not already done so, Defendant Swinford shall serve her supplemental responses 4 on Plaintiff within forty-five days. If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the supplemental responses, he is 5 not precluded from filing a motion to compel once he receives and reviews the responses. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on April 29, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED 7 as moot, and Defendant SHALL serve her supplemental responses within forty-five days from the 8 date of service of this order, if she has not done so already. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: ie14hj May 19, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The deadline to file a reply has not expired, but given that the supplemental responses are forthcoming rather than already in Plaintiff’s possession, there is no additional information that Plaintiff could provide in the reply that would alter the Court’s decision regarding the mootness of Plaintiff’s motion. 2

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?