Moore v. Gipson et al
Filing
104
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 103 Motion to Compel Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/17/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MERRICK JOSE MOORE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
v.
14
Case No. 1:13-cv-01820-BAM (PC)
GIPSON, et al.,
15
(ECF No. 103)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Merrick Jose Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
19
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against Defendants Meier, Casas,
20
Childress, and Adams, and for failure to intervene against Defendants Ford and Thornburg. All
21
parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 7, 74.)
22
On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting modification of the Court’s
23
scheduling order, specifically seeking responses to discovery requests that were apparently served
24
on defense counsel in late April 2017. (ECF No. 96.) On September 14, 2018, following full
25
briefing on the motion, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on both procedural and substantive
26
grounds. (ECF No. 104.)
27
28
Also on September 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and a
declaration in support of the motion. (ECF No. 103.) It appears Plaintiff’s motion crossed in the
1
1
mail with the Court’s order. Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to file an opposition, but
2
the Court finds a response is unnecessary, and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule
3
230(l).
4
In his renewed motion, Plaintiff again argues that he served discovery requests on
5
Defendants on April 26, 2017, citing to the attachments to his original motion requesting
6
modification of the scheduling order. Plaintiff raises no new arguments, and presents no
7
additional evidence to support his contention that discovery should be reopened and Defendants
8
should be compelled to respond to such requests. (ECF No. 103.)
9
10
Therefore, Plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel, (ECF No. 103), is DENIED, for the
same reasons discussed in the Court’s September 14, 2018 order.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
September 17, 2018
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?