Fields v. Lloren et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion to Defer Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 33 , 35 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/12/13: Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice; and Motion to Defer Ruling on Motion to Compel is DENIED. (Hellings, J)

(PC) Fields v. Lloren et al

Doc. 44

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KEVIN E. FIELDS,

1:09-cv-01733-AWI-MJS-PC

8

10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND MOTION TO DEFER RULING
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,

9
v.

(ECF Nos. 33 & 35)
11

T. LLOREN, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13

/

14
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
15
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
16
Plaintiff initiated this action on October 2, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened
17
Plaintiff’s Complaint on December 10, 2010, and dismissed it, with leave to amend, for
18
failure to state claim. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December
19
17, 2010. (ECF No. 10.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint stated
20
a cognizable claim against Defendants Lloren and Battles and ordered service on these
21
Defendants. (ECF Nos. 18, 19, & 21.)
22
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his discovery requests on January 11,
23
2013. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff filed another motion, on February 15, 2013, asking for the
24
Court to defer ruling on his motion to compel. (ECF No. 35.) In the latter motion, Plaintiff
25
alleges that he met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel regarding the discovery issues
26
and that the issues have been resolved. (Id.)
27
28
-1Dockets.Justia.com

1

Since it appears that Plaintiff has resolved his discovery issues with Defendants,

2

there is no need for the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel at this time. The Court

3

will not defer ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, but it will deny it without prejudice.

4

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 33) is DENIED without prejudice; and

6

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to defer ruling on his motion to compel (ECF No. 35) is
DENIED.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ci4d6

August 12, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-