Garcia v. Folks et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/25/2017 ORDERING defendants' 67 motion to compel is WITHDRAWN.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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL GARCIA,

12

No. 2:14-cv-2378 JAM DB P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. FOLKS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are defendants’ and plaintiff’s motions to

19

compel. For the reasons set forth below, this court finds defendants have withdrawn their motion

20

and requests further information from plaintiff regarding his motion.

21

This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s original complaint filed here on October 6, 2014.

22

(ECF No. 1.) On screening, the court found plaintiff stated the following potentially cognizable

23

claims regarding the conditions of his confinement at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”): (1)

24

First Amendment retaliation claims against all defendants; (2) Eighth Amendment claims based

25

on the mishandling of plaintiff’s food against defendants Cox, Folks, Loftin, and Riley; (3) Eighth

26

Amendment claims based on plaintiff’s living conditions against defendants Cox, Folks, Loftin,

27

Madrigal, Riley, Witcheal, and Wung; and (4) Eighth Amendment claims regarding plaintiff’s

28

serious medical needs against Cox, Loftin, Madrigal, Riley, Witcheal, and Wung. (ECF No. 14.)
1

1

On June 9, 2016, defendants Cox, Folks, Holmes, Loftin, Madrigal, Witcheal, and Wung filed an

2

answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 30.) On November 14, 2016, defendant Riley filed an

3

answer. (ECF No. 45.)

4

On February 27, 2017, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff to respond to

5

interrogatories and to a request for production of documents. (ECF No. 67.) On March 16, the

6

court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to the discovery. (ECF No.

7

71.)

8
9

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

10

requested in plaintiff’s motion to him. (ECF No. 73 at 2.) Plaintiff did not file a reply to

11

defendants' response.

12

In a declaration filed April 12, 2017, defendants' counsel informed the court that plaintiff

13

has now complied with the discovery sought in defendants’ motion to compel. Defendants

14

therefore withdraw their motion. (See ECF No. 75.)

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

16

1. Defendants’ February 27, 2017 motion to compel (ECF No. 67) is withdrawn.

17

2. Within twenty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall inform the court whether he

18

has received a response to his motion to compel and it is therefore moot. If plaintiff

19

does not file a timely notification, the court will accept defendants’ representation that

20

they have responded to the discovery requested in the motion to compel and will

21

dismiss plaintiff’s motion as moot.

22

Dated: May 25, 2017

23
24
25

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/garc2378.mtcs

26
27
28
2