Reamel v. Harrington et al

Filing 61

ORDER granting 51 Motion to Compel; taking under advisement 56 Motion to Amend the Complaint and setting Dispositive Motions Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/7/2018. (Dispositive Motions filed by 4/28/2018).(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REAMEL CURTIS,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

1:15-cv-00553-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL

vs.
(ECF No. 51)
KELLI HARRINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TAKING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT UNDER ADVISEMENT
(ECF No. 56)
ORDER SETTING DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS DEADLINE

19
20

Curtis Reamel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s

22

Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin

23

(“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 13, 15, 20). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 12),

24

alleges that he was wrongfully transferred to the “3-A” facility at California State Prison

25

Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”), where Plaintiff’s documented enemy (inmate Butler) was being

26

housed. Plaintiff was later assaulted and injured by inmate Butler.

27
28

The Court held a status conference on March 7, 2018. Plaintiff appeared pro se and
counsel Lucas L. Hennes appeared for Defendants.
1

1

The Court granted the pending motion to compel (ECF No. 51) complete discovery

2

responses to Defendant Bugarin’s interrogatories #7-8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-

3

(a)(4) (“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer … if: (iii) a

4

party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 … an evasive or incomplete

5

disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond”).

6

Defendant Bugarin’s interrogatories 7-8 and the responses presently state as follows:

7
8

7. State all instances when you personally interacted with Defendant Bugarin
after January 25, 2012. For each interaction, Plaintiff was also asked to list the
date and time, as well as any other persons who were present for the interaction.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

RESPONSE: 4.5.12.
8. State all facts in support of his contention that he was transferred to Facility 3A in 2012 based on Defendant Bugarin’s recommendation, as stated in the First
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12 at 8.)
RESPONSE: Fact counselor Bugarin personally escorted Plaintiff to 3-A
Facility which resulted [in] me to get[ting assaulted] by known documented
enemy.

16

(ECF No. 51-2 at 19.) At the status conference, Plaintiff indicated that there was more

17

information to be added to both responses. Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to

18

compel and directed Plaintiff to serve amended responses upon Defendant Bugarin by March

19

23, 2018.

20
21

The Court also discussed the pending motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint and the dispositive motions deadline.

22

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Defendant Burgarin’s motion to compel complete discovery responses to

24
25
26
27
28

interrogatories 7-8 (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve amended responses to interrogatories 7-8 upon
Defendant Bugarin by March 23, 2018;
3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 56) is
taken under advisement; and
2

1

4. The dispositive motions deadline is RESET to April 28, 2018.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 7, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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