Coleman v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/23/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's May 12, 2016 motion (ECF No. 91 ) is construed as a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, and includes a request to extend the discovery deadline; The parties shall brief plaintiffs motion (ECF No. 91 ) pursuant to Local Rule 230(l); and Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 91 ) is DENIED without prejudice.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT COLEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1021 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. This action proceeds on

18
19

plaintiff’s challenge to the modified program or changes to the modified program implemented on

20

April 16, 2012, or on July 9, 2012, including his claim that the “practice of a race based lockdown

21

end,” (ECF No. 45-7 at 24), as well as his alleged deprivation of visits and phone calls (ECF No.

22

25 at 19-20).1 (ECF Nos. 67 at 23-27; 29; 77.)
On May 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a document seeking sanctions under Rule 37(a)(2)(B)

23
24

based on defendants’ alleged refusal to turn over certain documents or answer questions. Plaintiff

25

adds that because he includes accusations of “official misconduct,” his request for preliminary

26
27

1

The undersigned also found that “whether plaintiff’s administrative challenge to the policy,
custom or practice of race based lockdowns includes a challenge to the December 7, 2011
lockdown remains a disputed issue of material fact.” (ECF No. 67 at 24.)

28
1

1

injunction should be granted. However, it appears that defendants responded to plaintiff’s

2

discovery requests, but that plaintiff does not believe the responses were proper or thorough, or

3

that certain objections were well-taken. Thus, the court construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion to

4

compel discovery and for sanctions. The parties shall brief plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Local

5

Rule 230(l), and shall also address plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline. In

6

addition, to the extent that plaintiff contends that any misconduct took place, his remedy in this

7

context is sanctions, not injunctive relief. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief is

8

denied without prejudice.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10
11

1. Plaintiff’s May 12, 2016 motion (ECF No. 91) is construed as a motion to compel
discovery and for sanctions, and includes a request to extend the discovery deadline;

12
13
14
15

2. The parties shall brief plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 91) pursuant to Local Rule 230(l);
and
3. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 91) is denied without prejudice.
Dated: May 23, 2016

16
17
18

/cw/cole1021.mtcfb

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2