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.

Franklin v. Dudley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 31, 2010

ROBERT DUANE FRANKLIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
G. DUDLEY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel filed June 15, 2010. (Dkt. No. 58.) On July 7, 2010, defendants filed an opposition.*fn1 (Dkt. No. 64.) On July 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 66.) For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is denied.

The motion to compel is not clear as to what discovery responses are at issue. In the opposition, defendant reasonably construes the motion as addressing two sets of interrogatories although, apparently in an abundance of caution, she attaches copies of her responses to requests for admissions and a request for production of documents. In his motion to stay proceedings, filed in response to defendant's summary judgment motion filed July 30, 2010, plaintiff states that defendant's responses to his request for production of documents and request for admissions are at issue.

Plaintiff first contends that defendant did not respond to his first set of interrogatories. In the opposition, defense counsel states that he has no record of receiving a first set of interrogatories from plaintiff. For that reason, defendant did not respond to the first set of interrogatories. Defense counsel states that defendant's responses to the first set have now been served. Good cause appearing, the motion to compel as to the first set of interrogatories is deemed resolved and denied.

At issue are defendant's response to plaintiff's request for admissions, which included 9 requests. Also at issue are defendant's response to plaintiff's request for production of documents, which included 22 requests. Finally, at issue are defendant's responses to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories, which included 13 interrogatories.

The motion to compel does not specifically address any of the 44 at issue discovery requests. Rather, plaintiff generally argues that defendant's objections have no merit, although he does not address any of defendant's substantive responses. In essence, plaintiff is asking the undersigned to review defendant's responses to determine whether they are adequate. The undersigned has neither the time nor the resources to act as plaintiff's attorney. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to the second set of interrogatories, request for production of documents and request for admissions is denied without prejudice on the grounds that it is not well supported.

As discussed above, on July 30, 2010, defendant filed a summary judgment motion. On August 11, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to "stay" defendant's motion pending resolution of his motion to compel. On August 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to oppose defendant's motion.

The motion to stay is denied as unnecessary as plaintiff's motion to compel is addressed in the instant order. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. No. 58) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion to stay (Dkt. No. No. 70) is denied;

3. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Dkt. No. 71) is granted; plaintiff's opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion is due within twenty-eight days of the date of this order.


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.