Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. Munoz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 15, 2009

DESHA M. CARTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
C. MUNOZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 33)

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Desha M. Carter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint, filed November 30, 2007, against Defendants Munoz, Paz, Parra, and Silva for violation of the Eighth Amendment arising from the conditions Plaintiff was subjected to in the management cell, against Defendant Munoz for violation of the Due Process Clause arising from Plaintiff's placement in the management cell, and against Defendant Munoz for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The discovery phase of this litigation commenced on January 13, 2009. On April 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a response to his request for the production of documents, and Defendants filed an opposition on April 27, 2009. Plaintiff's reply was due on or before May 7, 2009, and to date, no reply has been filed. Therefore, the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 78-230(m).

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to file a response to his document production request. Plaintiff's motion fails to set forth when he served the discovery request, and fails to include a copy of the discovery request supported by the proof of service, documentation which is necessary to support the motion to compel. These deficiencies preclude the Court from reaching the merits of Plaintiff's motion.

However, in their opposition, Defendants state that they responded to Plaintiff's document production request on February 2, 2009, and informed Plaintiff that documents would be forthcoming. Defendants state that the documents were served on April 23, 2009. Based on Defendants' representation that the documents have now been produced, the dispute appears to be moot.

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed April 8, 2009, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090515

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.