Torrence v. Hseuh et al

Filing 84

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/2/12 DENYING 78 Motion to Compel. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DEAVON E. TORRENCE,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:10-cv-1222 KJM KJN P

F. HSEUH, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On June 13, 2012,

17

plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 78.) Plaintiff seeks production of the

18

Institutional Security Unit (“ISU”) Interrogation/Interview of plaintiff which occurred in the

19

California Medical Facility emergency room on March 12, 2008. Plaintiff states he submitted

20

written requests pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure between the months

21

of March through June of 2011, but had not yet received a copy of the ISU report, and plaintiff

22

found no copy of the ISU report in his central file. Plaintiff did not provide a copy of the specific

23

discovery request at issue.

24

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion as untimely-filed, and argue that without

25

production of the specific discovery request or requests at issue, neither defendants nor the court

26

can determine whether relief is appropriate.
1

1

Defendants’ arguments are well taken. By order filed November 17, 2011, the

2

scheduling order was modified, and the discovery deadline was extended to March 19, 2012.

3

(Dkt. No. 67.) The parties were informed that all motions necessary to compel discovery were to

4

be filed by March 19, 2012. Under the mailbox rule, plaintiff’s motion to compel was presented

5

to prison officials for mailing on June 3, 2012. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76

6

(1988) (pro se prisoner filing is dated from the date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities).

7

Thus, plaintiff’s motion is untimely, as all motions to compel were to be filed by March 19,

8

2012.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 13, 2012 motion to

10

compel discovery (dkt. no. 78) is denied.

11

DATED: July 2, 2012

12
13

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15

torr1222.mtc

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2