Kietty v. Walker et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 36 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/2/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
A. WALKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 36]

Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Defendants filed an opposition

19
20

on May 15, 2015. The motion is deemed submitted to the Court for review pursuant to Local Rule

21

230(l).

22
23
24

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to respond to his request for interrogatories sent on
February 2, 2015.
Pursuant to the Court’s June 2, 2014, discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for

25

completion of all discovery, including motions to compel, was set for February 2, 2015. (ECF No.

26

16.) Pursuant to this order, responses to written discovery requests are due forty-five days after the

27

request is first served. (Id.) In this instance, the last day to serve discovery requests was December

28

19, 2014, to allow for the forty-five day response period. (Id.)
1

1

Although Plaintiff requested an extension of the discovery deadline, the request was denied on

2

the basis that Plaintiff failed to present good cause for such extension. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) Therefore,

3

discovery concluded on February 2, 2015. Plaintiff did not propound his discovery in a timely manner

4

by following the procedure as outlined in the Court’s June 2, 2014, order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

5

discovery request was untimely, and the motion to compel must be DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:

9

June 2, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

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