IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 8, 2010
WILLIAM SOTO, PLAINTIFF,
DUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 14, 2009, plaintiff requested a copy of defendant's supplemental interrogatory responses and an extension of time to file a motion to compel. Dckt. No. 52. By order dated April 19, 2010, the court ordered defendant to provide plaintiff with a copy of the supplemental interrogatory responses and granted plaintiff 45 days from the date of the order to bring a motion to compel. Dckt. No. 55.
On April 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. The motion does not allege that defendant failed to comply with the April 19, 2010 order or that plaintiff has not received the supplemental interrogatory responses. Indeed, other than some case citations, the entirety of the motion is:
I feel this motion to compel is in order under the color of the law, and that I should be awarded $150 a day for 60 plus days, and that Doctor Zhou should be reprimanded, so that this problem does not happen again. I also feel that Duel Vocational Institution should be fined in the amount of $25,000 or whatever the court so wishes.
The court cannot determine from the motion what discovery responses defendant has failed to provide; i.e., what plaintiff seeks to compel. Accordingly, the motion to compel must be denied and no sanctions may be awarded. If defendant has failed to provide plaintiff with the supplemental interrogatory responses as ordered on April 19, 2010, plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this order to file new a motion to compel so informing the court.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.