Wedmore v. Jorgenson et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. denying 42 Motion to Compel without prejudice. (BG) Distributed on 8/18/2016. (rh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Travis L. Wedmore,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Brian Jorgenson, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 1:14-cr-149

Before the court is a "Motion to Compel" filed by plaintiff on August 8, 2016. Plaintiff seeks
the following:
In the Second Claim (To prove the mistreatment and judgment of my sexuality):
!
In regards to Elton Hotain #37637 filing a "False" sexual harassment against
me . . . I want access to all the records kept on that incident between the
dates of March 25th, 2014 until May 29th, 2014.
! In regards to hanging myself . . . I want access to all the records kept on that
incident between the dates of May 12th, 2014 until May 29th, 2014.
In the Third Claim (To Prove Cruel and Unusual Punishment):
! In regards to being placed in Observation, following my suicide attempt... I
want access to all the records kept on that incident between the dates of May
12th, 2014 until May 22nd, 2014.
In the Sixth Claim (To prove the mistreatment and judgment of my sexuality):
! In regards to being found guilty of having Sexual Contact with 5 other
inmates, and being one of the "only " two inmates to be placed in
Administrative Segregation . . . I want access to all the records kept on that
incident between the dates of September 8th, 2014 until August 8th, 2015.
(Docket No. 42) (errors and emphasis in original).
Defendants filed a response to plaintiff's motion on August 15, 2016. They aver that
plaintiff's motion is premature. The undersigned agrees.
Attached to plaintiff's motion is a copy of a letter, dated July 11, 2016, in which plaintiff

1

requested production of the aforementioned documents from defendants. According to defendants,
they received plaintiff's request on or about July 13, 2016, and were preparing a response. Rule
34(b)(2)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, upon service of a discovery
request, a party has 30 days in which to respond. And under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), the parties are
afforded an additional three days for mailing. Thus, it would appear that defendants' response to
plaintiff's request was due on or about August 15, 2016. Plaintiff filed his motion approximately 1
week before this deadline expired.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 42) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2