Robinson v. Prisil, et al.

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/15/18 DENYING 36 Motion to Compel Discovery. The Clerk of Court is to correct the spellings of the names of the defendants in the case caption of the docket to reflect the true and complete spe llings and/or identities of defendants as follows: a. Defendant Prisil is to be corrected to Don Purcell: b. Defendant John is to be corrected to John Maike; c. Defendant Yuo is to be corrected to Hae-Sook Yuo, M.D., and d. Defendant Angie Jin is to be corrected to Angie Jin, R.N. (Plummer, M) Modified on 2/16/2018 (Plummer, M).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROOSEVELT J. ROBINSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0790 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

PRISIL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

The matter is currently in the discovery phase. A potentially dispositive motion for summary

19

judgment has also been filed by defendants. See ECF No. 38.
On August 31, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 36. In it, he

20
21

asserted that the interrogatories he had served on defendants “Dr. John” and “Dr. Prisil” that were

22

dated June 28, 2017 had not been responded to in a timely manner, and he effectively requested

23

that the court order defendants to respond to them. See generally id. at 1-2.
On September 20, 2017, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 37. In

24
25

it, defendants stated that defendant Don Purcell1 had served initial and amended responses to

26

plaintiff’s discovery on September 8, 2017 and September 11, 2017, respectively, and that

27
28

1

Defendant “Dr. Prisil” appears to be defendant Don Purcell. See ECF No. 37.
1

1

defendant John Maike2 had served his responses to plaintiff’s discovery on September 5, 2017.

2

See ECF No. 37. Since then, neither party has communicated to this court that they have had

3

additional problems with the receipt of discovery responses. On this record, the court concludes

4

that plaintiff has received responsive discovery from defendants.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s August 31, 2017 motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 36) is DENIED as

7

moot, and

8
9
10

2. The Clerk of Court is to correct the spellings of the names of the defendants in the
case caption of the docket to reflect the true and complete spellings and/or identities of defendants
as follows:

11

a. Defendant “Prisil” is to be corrected to “Don Purcell”:

12

b. Defendant “John” is to be corrected to “John Maike”;

13

c. Defendant “Yuo” is to be corrected to “Hae-Sook Yuo, M.D.”, and

14

d. Defendant “Angie Jin” is to be corrected to “Angie Jin, R.N.”

15

DATED: February 15, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Defendant “Dr. John” appears to be defendant John Maike. See ECF No. 37. The court will
order the Clerk of Court to correct misspellings of all defendants’ names in the docket to reflect
their true spellings. The changes will be in accord with the collective spellings listed in the
attorney address / represented party block on the first page of defendants’ pleadings.
2