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)

Download PDF
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?