Jesse Washington v. Samuels

Filing 56

ORDER denying as moot 55 REQUEST for court to enforce Discovery Order of July 22, 2015 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/21/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSE WASHINGTON,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
R. SAMUELS, et al.,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01404-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR COURT TO ENFORCE
DISCOVERY ORDER OF JULY 22, 2015
[ECF No. 55]

Plaintiff Jesse Washington is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendant Samuels filed an

20

opposition on May 15, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 29, 2015. In accordance with the

21

Court’s June 2, 2015, order, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s reply. (ECF No. 44.)

22

On June 18, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel finding that Defendants by

23

way of supplemental responses had adequately responded to Plaintiff’s discovery at issue in his

24

motion to compel. (ECF No. 45.)

25

On June 29, 2015, and July 2, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed “objections” indicating that

26

Defendant’s responses were not adequate and did not properly address his discovery requests. On July

27

22, 2015, the Court directed Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s objections.

28
1

Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on August 13, 2015. (ECF No. 52.)

1
2

Defendant submits that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry there are no additional

3

responsive documents aside from those previously produced by Defendant. (ECF No. 44, Ex. A.)

4

On August 17, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s supplement

5

response provided no basis to modify the prior order. (ECF No. 54.)
On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to enforce the discovery order issued

6
7

July 22, 2015. (ECF No. 55.)
Inasmuch as the Court has addressed and denied Plaintiff’s objections to the prior discovery

8
9

order, Plaintiff’s present motion for enforcement of such order is MOOT and is DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

13

August 21, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2