Henderson v. Lankford et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/15/2014 DENYING plaintiff's 55 motion to compel, without prejudice. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY HENDERSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2317 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DR. R. LANKFORD,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Both parties consented to proceed
before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On September 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses.

20

Defendant filed an opposition on September 29, 2014. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling

21

defendant to produce for inspection and copying the documents requested on or about June 29,

22

2014. Plaintiff claims that the delay in production prejudices his ability to file or oppose pretrial

23

motions. However, as argued by defendant, the undersigned granted defendant an extension of

24

time up to and including October 13, 2014, in which to file discovery responses, including the

25

production of documents. (ECF No. 54.) Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature

26

because it was filed prior to the deadline for discovery responses. Moreover, the pretrial motions

27

deadline was continued to December 18, 2014; thus, plaintiff suffers no prejudice by the court’s

28

order granting the extension of time.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 55)

2

is denied without prejudice.

3

Dated: October 15, 2014

4
5

/hend2317.mtc2

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2