Ahkeem Williams v. Pedriero et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 39 & 43 Motions to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Document Production Requests, Without Prejudice; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Provide Plaintiff With Proof of Service Form, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/2/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service Form) (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
REQUESTS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Docs. 39 and 43)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO
PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH PROOF OF
SERVICE FORM

15
16
_____________________________________/
17

Plaintiff Akheem Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

18

19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This action is proceeding
20 against Defendants Garcia, Valdiz, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stephens, Collier, Torres, Delia,
21 and Tordson for use of excessive physical force, in violation of the United States Constitution.
On July 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his

22

23 interrogatories, and on August 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his
24 requests for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Defendants did not file a
1
25 response. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff failed to include a proof of service by mail with either motion. Every document

26

27 filed by Plaintiff must be accompanied by a proof of service by mail form setting forth (1) the date
28

1

As discussed herein, the motions lack a proof of service on Defendants.

1 of service, (2) the document(s) served, (3) the name of the individual or entity upon whom service
2 was made (Defendants’ counsel, in this situation), and (4) the signature of the individual who
3 served the document by mail. Plaintiff was provided with a proof of service form in an order filed
4 on April 19, 2012, but the Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to provide him with another one.
5 Plaintiff is warned that any future filings that do not include the requisite proof of service will be
6 stricken from the record.
7

In addition, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are not accompanied by a copy of the discovery

8 requests in dispute or a copy of Defendants’ discovery responses. The Court cannot resolve a
9 motion to compel on the merits in the absence of a copy of the requests and the responses in
10 dispute.
11

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motions to compel are HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice

12 to renewal; and the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a proof of service form.
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 2, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2