Lipsey v. Kalil, et al.

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/15/2022 DENYING plaintiff's 66 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

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

12

No. 2:17-cv-1429 TLN AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. KALIL, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983, has filed a motion to compel discovery responses from defendant Hamad. ECF No. 66.

19

However, plaintiff has failed to provide defendant’s responses or objections to the requests or to

20

explain why the responses are deficient. The court is therefore unable to assess the merits of the

21

motion. Furthermore, by order filed September 13, 2021, discovery in this action was stayed

22

except to the extent that plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a motion to compel responses to

23

any exhaustion-related discovery requests that he had already served; the time for making such a

24

motion has since passed. It further appears that the requests at issue in plaintiff’s current motion

25

were not served until October 12, 2021, and plaintiff did not seek leave of the court to pursue

26

additional discovery related to exhaustion. Finally, the court notes that the substance of the

27

requests appears largely duplicative of those already addressed by the court in ruling on plaintiff’s

28

previous two motions to compel. See ECF No. 65.
1

1

Accordingly, for all the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

2

plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 66, is DENIED.

3

DATED: February 15, 2022

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2