Gayler v. High Desert State Prison et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying as moot Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Discovery and Admissions. Defendants' 29 Unopposed Motion to Strike 26 Response is Granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike 26 from the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/21/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13

BRANDYN GAYLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
HIGH DESERT PRISON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00769-APG-CWH
ORDER

14

Before the Court is Plaintiff Brandyn Gayler’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Discovery and

15

Admissions (doc. # 27), filed March 9, 2015, and Defendants James G. Cox, Jerry Howell, Jennifer

16

Nash, and Dwight Neven’s (“Defendants”) Response (doc. # 31), filed March 26, 2015. Plaintiff did

17

not file a reply. Also before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Strike Response (doc.

18

# 29), filed March 24, 2015.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada

21

Department of Corrections and currently incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison. On July 7,

22

2014, the Court entered a screening order finding that Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support his

23

Equal Protection Clause claim. See Doc. # 6; see also Doc. # 19. Defendants filed an answer to

24

Plaintiff’s complaint on December 23, 2014. See Doc. # 21. Thereafter, this Court entered a

25

scheduling order governing discovery in the instant case. See Doc. # 22.
DISCUSSION

26
27
28

1.

Motion for Discovery and Admissions (doc. # 27)
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants to produce various documents pursuant to

1

Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”). Plaintiff also moves the Court to compel

2

Defendants to respond to interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 of the FRCP.

3

Defendants, in response, ask the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion, claiming Plaintiff failed to

4

satisfy the “meet and confer” requirements set forth in Local Rule 26-7 and Rule 37 of the FRCP.

5

Defendants further point out that Plaintiff’s motion is moot in light of current, ongoing discovery.

6

Plaintiff did not reply to Defendants’ opposition.

7

Because Defendants have established the mootness of Plaintiff’s request, and Plaintiff has

8

failed to rebut that showing, this Court denies the instant motion as moot.

9

2.

Motion to Strike Response (doc. # 29)

10

Defendants move to strike doc. # 26, claiming Plaintiff couched doc. # 26 as a “motion”

11

requesting leave to file a response to Defendants’ answer, when the content of the “motion” reveals

12

that it is actually a response to Defendants’ answer. Because the Court did not order Plaintiff to file

13

a reply to Defendants’ answer, Defendants ask the Court to strike the document from the record.

14

Under Rule 7 of the FRCP, Plaintiff can file a reply to an answer only “if the court orders one.”

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). A review of doc. # 26 reveals that it is not a motion but a reply to Defendants’

16

answer. However, even if this Court were to construe doc. # 26 as a motion to file a reply to

17

Defendants’ answer, Plaintiff fails to show why this Court should grant him leave to file a reply.

18

Because the Court did not order Plaintiff to file a reply, this Court grants Defendants’ motion and

19

directs the Clerk of Court to strike doc. # 26 from the record.

20
21
22
23
24
25

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and
Admissions (doc. # 27) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Strike Response (doc.
# 29) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike doc. # 26 from the record.
DATED: April 21, 2015

26
27

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2