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).

Download PDF
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?