Bussiere v. Kokor et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Compel as premature signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/22/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,

10

Plaintiff,

11

Case No. 1:13-cv-01565-SKO (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
AS PREMATURE

v.

12

(Doc. 31)
13

DR. W. KOKOR, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
Plaintiff Arthur T. Bussiere, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

16

17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 27, 2013. On June 19, 2015,
18 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to respond to his interrogatories, which were served
19 on May 5, 2015, and May 6, 2015.
Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the parties have forty-five days to serve

20

21 discovery responses. (Doc. 26, ¶2.) In addition, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide
22 three days for mailing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Accordingly, Defendants had until June 22, 2015,
23 and June 23, 2015, within which to serve their discovery responses. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
1
24 is premature and it is HEREBY DENIED on that ground, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25

Dated:

26

June 22, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

1

In addition, Plaintiff failed to include a copy of his interrogatories. Had Plaintiff’s motion been timely filed, the
failure to include the discovery requests in dispute would have been grounds for denial of the motion.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2