Stribling v. Mott et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/5/2018 ORDERING plaintiff shall have 14 days to file a reply to defendants' 64 opposition to his motion to compel. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON LAMONT STRIBLING,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0400 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. MOTT, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

On February 12, 2018, the Clerk of the Court filed plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

18

responses from defendants Mott, Andrichuk, Glenn, Johnson, Molina, Morrow, Murillo,

19

Schneider, and Terry. (ECF No. 59.) Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on March 6,

20

2018. (ECF No. 64.) Included with the motion was a certificate of service that averred the

21

motion had been served on plaintiff by mail at his address of record at the California State Prison,

22

Sacramento. (Id. at 6.) On March 20, 2018, without any explanation, defendants filed another

23

certificate of service averring that their opposition was served on plaintiff by mail at San Quentin

24

State Prison. (ECF No. 68.) Plaintiff has now filed a reply in which he asserts that he did not

25

receive the opposition served on March 6, 2018, and that defendants therefore did not file their

26

opposition on that day. (ECF No. 70.) He further states that he did receive the opposition served

27

on March 20, 2018, that it was mailed to the wrong address because he was not housed at San

28

Quentin State Prison, and that he never told the court or defendants that he was housed at San
1

1

Quentin State Prison. (Id.) He claims that this was a ploy by defendants to make him miss his

2

deadline to file a reply. (Id.)

3

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendants did in fact file their opposition on March 6,

4

2018. ECF No. 64. While it appears that plaintiff did not receive that copy of the opposition,

5

there is no evidence that it was because defendants failed to serve it on him. While it is unclear

6

why defendants later served plaintiff with a copy of the opposition at location where he was not

7

housed, he did ultimately receive that copy of the opposition and will be given an opportunity to

8

file a reply.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the

10

service of this order to file a reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel.

11

Dated: April 5, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15

13:stri0400.mtc.reply

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2