Chatman v. Felker, et al

Filing 95

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/31/2008 ORDERING 92 Request for an extension of time in which to conduct discovery is DENIED; Pltf is given until 2/8/2008 in which to file any motions to compel discovery; and pltf's request for a copy of the amended complaint is GRANTED; the Clerk to send a copy to the pltf. (Matson, R)

(PC) Chatman v. Felker, et al

Doc. 95

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 vs. T. FELKER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1982. On January 2, 2008, he filed a motion for an extension of time in which to conduct discovery. He contends that he is corresponding with defendants' counsel concerning defendants' responses to discovery, which plaintiff considers inadequate. He adds that he wishes to pursue additional requests for admissions. Plaintiff has not explained, however, why he did not serve his requests for admissions during the additional time granted by the court in response to plaintiff's initial motion for additional time to conduct discovery. Moreover, although plaintiff is apparently attempting to confer with defendants about discovery issues, this does not excuse his failure to proceed with discovery: the court's June 26, 2007 discovery order specifically exempted this ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES CHATMAN, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2415 RRB KJM P

ORDER

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

case from the meet and confer provisions of the local rules. L.R. 37-251. Plaintiff will be given additional time, however, in which to file any motions to compel discovery. Finally, plaintiff alleges his copy of the complaint was seized by two prison guards and asks the court to provide a copy of the complaint without requiring that he pay the copying fees. A litigant's in forma pauperis status does not extend to exempt him from the incidental expenses of litigation. See, e.g. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989). Nevertheless, because the litigation may be delayed if plaintiff is denied access to his complaint, the court will direct the clerk to provide plaintiff with a copy. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time in which to conduct discovery (docket no. 92) is denied;
2008 2. Plaintiff is given until February 8, 2007 in which to file any motions to compel

discovery; and 3. Plaintiff's request for a copy of his complaint (docket no. 92) is granted and the Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of his amended complaint, filed December 27, 2004. DATED: January 31, 2008.

2 chat2515.eot+

2