Baker v. Macomber et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/16/16 DENYING 37 Motion to Compel. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIMOTHY RAY BAKER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
No. 2:15-cv-0248 GEB AC P
ORDER
J. MACOMBER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights
17
18
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to motion filed May 11, 2016,1 plaintiff seeks
19
an order compelling defendants McCowan and Macomber to respond to plaintiff’s discovery
20
requests reportedly served on April 4, 2016. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion is
21
denied.
The court initially notes that this action proceeds only against sole remaining defendant
22
23
Correctional Officer J. McCowan; defendant Macomber was dismissed from this action on
24
October 13, 2015. See ECF No. 17.
25
1
26
27
28
Petitioner’s filing date is based on the prison mailbox rule, pursuant to which a document is
deemed served or filed on the date a prisoner signs the document (or signs the proof of service, if
later) and gives it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
(establishing prison mailbox rule); Campbell v. Henry, 614 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010)
(applying the mailbox rule to both state and federal filings by prisoners).
1
1
Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued by the court on January 4, 2016,
2
the period for conducting discovery expired on April 29, 2016, and any motion necessary to
3
compel discovery needed to be filed by that date. See ECF No. 21 at 5, ¶ 6. The order also
4
required that all discovery requests be served not later than sixty days prior to the discovery
5
deadline, or by February 29, 2016. Id.
6
In his pending motion, plaintiff asserts that he served discovery requests on defendants on
7
April 4, 2016, but never received a response. Counsel for defendant McCowan has filed an
8
opposition to plaintiff’s motion, wherein counsel states that he has no record of receiving the
9
subject discovery requests. Counsel further notes that the alleged copies of plaintiff’s discovery
10
requests, attached to plaintiff’s motion, are themselves dated May 11, 2016, and that plaintiff has
11
offered no proof that he served the requests on April 4, 2016. Plaintiff has not filed a reply to
12
defendant’s opposition.
13
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely filed. Moreover, plaintiff’s motion seeks to
14
compel defendant’s responses to discovery requests that appear never to have been served or, at
15
best, were untimely served but not received by defendant. There are no grounds for granting
16
plaintiff’s motion or seeking additional briefing.
17
The parties are reminded that the dispositive motion deadline in this action remains July
18
29, 2016, even though the undersigned’s findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2016 remain
19
pending before the district judge.
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery,
21
ECF No. 37, is denied.
22
DATED: June 16, 2016
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?