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)

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