The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 43)
Plaintiff Henry Murray ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against defendants Corley and Wallace ("defendants") for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. On June 16, 2008, defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to defendants' interrogatories, and for the production of documents. Defendants also seek money and/or terminating sanctions. (Doc. 43). On July 23, 2008, the Court ordered plaintiff to file a response to defendants' motion to compel within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 44). Despite obtaining two extensions of time, Plaintiff failed to file a response with the Court. On November 7, 2008, the Court issued an order requiring Defendants to notify the Court whether they had received a response to defendants' motion to compel. Defendants filed a response on November 10, 2008, indicating that they had not received a response to the motion to compel. Plaintiff had however, served further responses to the interrogatories, with three exhibits attached; Plaintiff did not serve responses to the request for production of documents. (Doc. 54).
Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories
Interrogatory: Identify all property (including the item, brand, and model number, if applicable) which you contend was not sent "home" to your family, as alleged in paragraphs 18 and 20 of your complaint.
Response: See complaint and property card prior to arrival at P.V.S.P. for accuracy. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's answer is deficient because Plaintiff has not identified the items he contends were not sent home; Defendants further assert that Plaintiff's complaint is unclear.
Plaintiff's response is deficient. The Court is aware that since the filing of the motion to compel, Plaintiff has provided defendants with further responses to the interrogatories; however, Defendants' motion to compel remains outstanding. Defendants' motion to compel a further supplemental response is granted. Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiff is to serve a further response to Interrogatory No. 13.
Interrogatory: State how much you paid for each item of property which you contend was not sent "home" to your family, as alleged in paragraphs 18 and 20 of your complaint.
Response: This question is ambiguous, These item prices are dictated by fair market value.
Plaintiff's response is non-responsive. Plaintiff shall serve an answer to Interrogatory No. 14 within thirty (30) days of service of this order.
Interrogatory: State all facts supporting your contention that the property you attempted to send "home" never arrived at its intended destination, as alleged in paragraph 18 of your complaint.
Response: This question is vague and ambiguous. Once property was delivered to C/O Corley and paid for it was no longer in my control. However, P.V.S.P stated the property was discarded.
Defendants' motion to compel a further response is granted. Plaintiff is to provide a further response indicating how, when and from whom he learned that his property was not sent home. Of course, if Plaintiff no longer remembers whom at P.V.S.P. he spoke with, or from whom he learned that his property was not sent home, Plaintiff may simply say so in his further response.
Interrogatory: State the full address to which you attempted to send your property, as alleged in ...