IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 17, 2009
LIONELL THOLMER, PLAINTIFF,
CHERYL K. PLILER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are two motions to compel (Docs. 130, 131).
On November 5, 2009, the court issued an order allowing Plaintiff a short extension of time to file a motion to compel regarding discovery requests addressed to defendants Pliler, Marrow, Wilson and Stratton only. The undersigned found the time for filing motions to compel regarding any other discovery issues as to the other defendants had long since passed and any such motion would be untimely.
Plaintiff's current motions to compel are requesting additional discovery responses from defendants Rosario and Walker. Plaintiff had until June 30, 2009 to file these motions, which he failed to do. The time for filing these motions was not extended. These motions are therefore untimely, and the defendants need not respond.
Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. As there appear to be no outstanding discovery issues, and the time for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel regarding any discovery issues relating to defendants Pliler, Marrow, Wilson and Stratton has now passed, Plaintiff shall file his response to the motion for summary judgment as provided in the local rules. See Local Rule 78-230(m) (providing oppositions to be served and filed not more than 18 days, plus three days for mailing, after the date of service of the motion).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to compel (Docs. 130, 131) are denied as untimely.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.