Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
91
ORDER Denying 80 and 81 Motions to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/4/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:13-cv-01527-JAD-CWH
ORDER
16
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jamal Damon Hendrix’s (“plaintiff”) motions to
17
compel (docs. # 80, # 81), Defendant Dr. Howard Hale Henson’s (“Henson”) response (doc. # 85),
18
along with the response (doc. # 84) of Defendants Dr. Elizabeth Neighbors, Dr. Richard Bissett, and
19
Tom Durante, (collectively “defendants”). Plaintiff did not file replies.
20
BACKGROUND
21
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada
22
Department of Corrections and currently incarcerated at the Ely State Prison. See Doc. # 7. On
23
January 21, 2014, the Court entered a screening order finding that plaintiff had pled sufficient facts
24
to support claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. See Doc. # 8. Plaintiff’s claims are
25
based on events that transpired in 2010 while plaintiff was undergoing a competency evaluation at
26
Lake’s Crossing Center in Reno, Nevada. See Doc. # 1-1; see also Doc. # 9.
27
//
28
//
1
2
DISCUSSION
1.
Motion to Compel (doc. # 80)
3
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Hale to respond to numbers 4, 5, and 8 of plaintiff’s first
4
set of interrogatories, and to plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories. Plaintiff also moves the Court
5
to sanction Hale in the amount of $300 for his purported failure to respond.
6
Hale, in response, asks the Court to deny the instant motion because plaintiff: (1) fails to set
7
forth the full text of the discovery originally sought, along with Hale’s responses, as required by Local
8
Rule (“LR”) 26-7(a); (2) fails to certify that plaintiff personally consulted and engaged in sincere
9
efforts to resolve the matter with Hale, as required by LR 26-7(b), noting that plaintiff could have
10
contacted Hale via telephone or in writing; (3) fails to identify the deficiencies in Hale’s responses to
11
numbers 4, 5, and 8 of plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories; (4) prematurely and frivolously compels
12
responses to the second set of interrogatories, which are not yet due, as the interrogatories have not
13
yet been served on Hale; and (5) erroneously seeks sanctions without any basis. Plaintiff did not file
14
a reply.
This Court agrees with Hale and, as such, denies the instant motion.
15
16
2.
Motion to Compel (doc. # 81)
17
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel defendants to respond to items in plaintiff’s first set of
18
interrogatories, plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories, and plaintiff’s request for production of
19
documents.
20
Defendants, in response, ask the Court to deny the instant motion because plaintiff: (1) fails
21
to set forth the full text of the discovery originally sought, along with defendant’s responses, as
22
required by LR 26-7(a); (2) fails to certify that plaintiff personally consulted and engaged in sincere
23
efforts to resolve the matter with defendants, noting that plaintiff’s cursory letter to defense counsel
24
is not sufficient for LR 26-7(b)’s purposes; (3) fails to identify the deficiencies in defendants’
25
responses; and (4) prematurely compels responses to the second set of interrogatories and to the
26
request for production of documents, which are not yet due. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
27
28
The Court agrees with defendants and again finds no basis to grant plaintiff’s motion.
//
2
1
2
3
4
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to compel (docs. # 80, # 81)
are denied.
DATED: May 4, 2015
5
6
7
______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?