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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?