(PC) Smith v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/17/2021 DENYING plaintiff's 49 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

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-2942 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 17, 2021, the court issued an order extending the deadline to file

20

motions to compel to October 25, 2021. ECF No. 47. On November 12, 2021, the court received

21

plaintiff’s motion to compel, which reflects that it was submitted for mailing on November 7,

22

2021. ECF No. 49 at 5. Even affording plaintiff the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule, see

23

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is

24

deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for mailing), his

25

motion is thirteen days late and is not accompanied by a request for leave to file the motion

26

untimely or an explanation as to why he was unable to timely file the motion.

27
28

The court further notes that while the motion identifies a significant number of responses
with which plaintiff takes issue, plaintiff fails to specify how each response or objection is
1

1

deficient beyond a general assertion that defendants have used “excuses for their failures that the

2

courts have ruled are inadequate.” ECF No. 49 at 2-3.

3

The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same
standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the
moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of
which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and,
for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not
justified.

4
5
6
7

Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S.

8

Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). A brief review of the responses provided by

9

plaintiff shows that a number of his requests were responded to despite any objections, and that a

10

significant portion of the responses to the disputed requests for production indicate that no

11

responsive documents exist or could be located or that responsive documents are not in

12

defendants’ possession, custody, or control. Id. at 6-86. Without further elaboration from

13

plaintiff as to why defendants’ responses are deficient or their objections are not justified, he has

14

failed to meet his burden in bringing a motion to compel and the court is unable to evaluate the

15

sufficiency of defendants’ responses or the appropriateness of their objections.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 49,

17

is DENIED.

18

DATED: November 17, 2021

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2