Thomas v. Darling et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/25/18 DENYING 34 Motion to Compel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMAAL THOMAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-02691 JAM CKD P

v.

ORDER

CHAD DARLING, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery from

19

defendants Pizarro and Darling. ECF No. 34. Defendants have opposed the motion on the

20

grounds that it is moot. See ECF Nos. 36, 37.

21

I.

22

Plaintiff is proceeding on his original complaint against defendants Darling, Pizarro, Camp,

23

and Haring on Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference based on events that occurred

24

on September 24, 2015. See ECF No. 7 (screening order). The original discovery and scheduling

25

order set a discovery deadline of November 13, 2017. See ECF No. 24 at 5. Based on the

26

parties’ separate motions to stay and modify the scheduling order, the discovery deadline was

27

extended to January 12, 2018. ECF No. 31.

28

Background

/////
1

1

II.

Motion to Compel

2

On January 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his Request for

3

Admissions, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, from defendants

4

Pizarro and Darling. ECF No. 34. In the motion, plaintiff alleges that these two defendants failed

5

to respond to his discovery requests sent on November 7, 2017. Id. By way of relief, plaintiff

6

requests that any objections to the discovery requests be deemed waived and/or that responses be

7

provided to plaintiff. Id. at 7.

8
9

Both defendants Pizarro and Darling indicate in their oppositions that their discovery
responses were mistakenly served on plaintiff at the Salinas Valley State Prison even though he

10

had already been moved to the Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles. See ECF Nos. 36, 37; see also

11

ECF No. 26 (Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address). This mistake was only corrected once

12

plaintiff communicated with defense counsel about the lack of a discovery response. See ECF

13

Nos. 36, 37. Defense counsel re-served their responses on plaintiff at the Men’s Central Jail. Id.

14

Unfortunately, by that point, plaintiff had been transferred back to the Salinas Valley State Prison.

15

See ECF No. 35 (Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address). Both defendants then sent another

16

copy of their discovery responses to plaintiff at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff has not filed

17

a reply to defendants’ opposition.

18

In light of this case history, the court finds that plaintiff's motion to compel has been rendered

19

moot by defendants’ re-service of their responses on plaintiff at the prison where he is currently

20

incarcerated.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 34) is

22

denied as moot.

23

Dated: April 25, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

12/thom2691.m2compel.docx

2