Hamilton v. Mule Creek State Prison, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 08/09/18 DENYING 54 Motion to Compel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID HAMILTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

ORDER

K. SUTTERFIELD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17
18

No. 2:13-CV-1143-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 54).

19

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to provide further responses to

20

discovery requests. As an initial matter, the court finds that the motion is procedurally defective.

21

Pursuant to the court’s January 17, 2018, scheduling order, motions to compel must comply with

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Rule 37(a)(1) requires the moving party to certify that a

23

good faith effort has been made to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute. In this case,

24

plaintiff’s motion contains no such certification or otherwise indicates any efforts to meet and

25

confer with defendants’ counsel. For this reason alone, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

26

///
1

1

Additionally, plaintiff’s motion fails to inform the court how defendants’

2

responses to his discovery requests are inadequate. In particular, plaintiff has not provided a

3

copy of the discovery and responses at issue or any argument specific to each such request and

4

response as to why it is inadequate and further responses should be compelled. For this added

5

reason, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc.
54) is denied.

8
9
10
11

DATED: August 9, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2