Frazier v. Redding Police Department et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/30/12 ORDERING that plaintiffs 41 motion compel discovery responses from defendants is DENIED as moot; and plaintiffs motion for an extension of time of the discovery deadline 50 is DENIED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CIV S-11-1351 GGH P

vs.
REDDING POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER
/

14
15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

16

rights action. By order, filed on April 11, 2012, the court directed plaintiff to inform the court

17

whether he was being significantly obstructed in his ability to prosecute this case by a lack of

18

writing paper or envelopes to serve and respond to discovery requests. Docket # 44. In his

19

response, filed on April 23, 2012, plaintiff indicates he still has trouble getting paper/envelopes

20

but otherwise indicates he has generally been receiving law library access. Dkt # 46. Despite his

21

complaint, however, the court notes that, in addition to his response, plaintiff filed five additional

22

motions/requests on the same day, April 23, 2012. See dkt #’s 47-51. Hence, it does not appear

23

on the face of it that plaintiff is being unduly hindered from proceeding in this case by a lack of

24

paper supplies.

25
26

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses, on April 6, 2012, to requests for
production of documents, interrogatories and requests for admission propounded upon
1

1

defendants. Dkt # 41. However, in response, defendants contends that their responses were

2

served timely. Dkt # 43. Moreover, plaintiff, himself, subsequently indicates that he sent his

3

motion to compel one day before (April 3, 2012) he received the responses from defendants on

4

April 4, 2012. Dkt # 49. Plaintiff’s motion appears, therefore, to be moot. To the extent

5

anything remains at issue, plaintiff has not adequately identified any specific response or

6

production to an identified request or interrogatory with which he takes issue. Plaintiff has until

7

May 18, 2012, to identify, with specificity, any deficiency he believes exists in any of the

8

defendants’ discovery responses or production.
Finally, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time of the May 18, 2012,

9
10

discovery deadline1 but fails to show good cause for the request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)(“A

11

schedule may be modified only for good cause... .”). The request, therefore, will be denied.

12

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s April 6, 2012 (docket # 41), motion compel discovery responses

14

from defendants is denied as moot; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time of the discovery deadline, filed on

15
16

April 23, 2012 (docket # 50), is denied.

17

DATED: April 30, 2012
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
GGH:009

20

fraz1351.ord6

21
22
23
24
25
26

1

See Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on January 13, 2012 (dkt # 28).
2