Garcia v. Moreno et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING 38 Plaintiff's Motion to serve additional requests for admissions, without prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/6/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENIN GARCIA,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.
E. MORENO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00014-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SERVE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[ECF No. 38]

Plaintiff Lenin Garcia is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee for this action.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to serve additional requests for admissions,
filed October 5, 2018. Defendants did not file an opposition.
On October 3, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ request to stay the merit-based discovery

22

and extended the time to respond to Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests until Defendants’

23

exhaustion-related motion for summary judgment is resolved.

24
25
26

On November 1, 2018, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending
that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied, without prejudice. (ECF No. 39.)
In the present motion, Plaintiff seeks to serve additional requests for admissions. Plaintiff

27

references the fact that on September 23, 2018, he served Defendants with his first twenty-five (25)

28

requests for admissions, and he seeks to propound twenty-two (22) additional requests.
1

As set forth in Defendants’ request to stay discovery, on September 23, 2018, Plaintiff served

1
2

on Defendants written discovery, including interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and

3

requests for admissions. (ECF No. 36.)
Because the Court has been stayed discovery until the pending exhaustion-related motion for

4
5

summary judgment is resolved, there is no basis to propound additional merits-based discovery, at this

6

time. In addition, Plaintiff is advised that to the extent he is propounding requests for admission there

7

is no restriction on the number of requests under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8

However, Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the number of interrogatories to

9

twenty-five, unless leave of Court is requested and granted. Here, Plaintiff is not seeking to propound

10

interrogatories but rather admissions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to serve additional requests for admissions is denied, without

11
12

prejudice. If the stay of discovery is lifted, and Plaintiff wishes to serve additional interrogatories

13

beyond the twenty-five limit, he may re-file a request at that time.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

November 6, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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