Garcia v. Folks et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/25/2017 ORDERING defendants' 67 motion to compel is WITHDRAWN. Within 20 days, plaintiff shall inform the court whether he as received a response to his motion to compel and it is therefore moot. If plaintiff does not file a timely notification, the court will accept defendants' representation that they have responded to the discovery requested in the motion to compel and will dismiss plaintiffs motion as moot. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-2378 JAM DB P
F. FOLKS, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are defendants’ and plaintiff’s motions to
compel. For the reasons set forth below, this court finds defendants have withdrawn their motion
and requests further information from plaintiff regarding his motion.
This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s original complaint filed here on October 6, 2014.
(ECF No. 1.) On screening, the court found plaintiff stated the following potentially cognizable
claims regarding the conditions of his confinement at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”): (1)
First Amendment retaliation claims against all defendants; (2) Eighth Amendment claims based
on the mishandling of plaintiff’s food against defendants Cox, Folks, Loftin, and Riley; (3) Eighth
Amendment claims based on plaintiff’s living conditions against defendants Cox, Folks, Loftin,
Madrigal, Riley, Witcheal, and Wung; and (4) Eighth Amendment claims regarding plaintiff’s
serious medical needs against Cox, Loftin, Madrigal, Riley, Witcheal, and Wung. (ECF No. 14.)
On June 9, 2016, defendants Cox, Folks, Holmes, Loftin, Madrigal, Witcheal, and Wung filed an
answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 30.) On November 14, 2016, defendant Riley filed an
answer. (ECF No. 45.)
On February 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff to respond to
interrogatories and to a request for production of documents. (ECF No. 67.) On March 16, the
court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to the discovery. (ECF No.
On April 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 72.) In an April 7
response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ counsel states that on April 6 she sent the discovery
requested in plaintiff’s motion to him. (ECF No. 73 at 2.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to
In a declaration filed April 12, 2017, defendants' counsel informed the court that plaintiff
has now complied with the discovery sought in defendants’ motion to compel. Defendants
therefore withdraw their motion. (See ECF No. 75.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ February 27, 2017 motion to compel (ECF No. 67) is withdrawn.
2. Within twenty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall inform the court whether he
has received a response to his motion to compel and it is therefore moot. If plaintiff
does not file a timely notification, the court will accept defendants’ representation that
they have responded to the discovery requested in the motion to compel and will
dismiss plaintiff’s motion as moot.
Dated: May 25, 2017
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?