Washington v. California Department of Corrections

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 07/13/18 ORDERING defendant shall respond to plaintiff's motion to compel 39 , 40 and 41 within 20 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff shall show cause why his motion for summary judgment 42 should not be denied as untimely. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM NATHANIEL WASHINGTON,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2302-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

15
Defendant.
16
17

/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are three duplicative motions to compel plaintiff filed

19

relating to his first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents (Docs. 39, 40,

20

41). The court notes that the last motion was filed after the last date in which to file a motion to

21

compel. However, as it is essentially duplicative of the first two, the court will address all three

22

of them together.

23

Defendant has not filed an opposition or any response to the motions. However,

24

attached to the motion is correspondence with plaintiff, in which defendant indicates the requests

25

were untimely. Without defendant directly responding to the motions, the court is unable to

26

resolve the issue of timeliness. It does appear from plaintiff’s motion that the discovery requests
1

1

were served on or about January 5, 2017. As discovery was open until September 4, 2017, it is

2

unclear how defendant has determined the discovery requests were untimely. In order to resolve

3

that issue, defendant will be directed to respond to the motions. Defendant is cautioned that

4

failure to do so may result in the motion being granted and sanctions issued as the court deems

5

appropriate. See Local Rule 110.

6

Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 42) on July 9, 2018.

7

Pursuant to the scheduling order, dispositive motions in this case were to be filed on or before

8

December 3, 2017. No request from either party to modify the scheduling order has been

9

received by the court. It is therefore unclear to the court whether the outstanding discovery

10

requests are still necessary. Plaintiff will be required to show cause why his motion for summary

11

judgment should not be denied as untimely. Plaintiff is similarly cautioned that failure to

12

respond to the order to show cause may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution

13

and failure to comply with court rules and orders, or other sanctions the court deems appropriate.

14

See Local Rule 110.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

17
18
19

Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s motions to compel (Docs. 39, 40,

41) within 20 days of the date of this order; and
2.

Plaintiff shall show cause why his motion for summary judgment (Doc.

42) should not be denied as untimely.

20
21
22
23

DATED: July 13, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
2