IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2011
DAVID E. EDWARDS,
CSP SOLANO, 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. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is Plaintiff's motion for production of documents (Doc. 53). Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. 55); Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. 56).
The court notes that plaintiff has titled this document a motion for production of documents, not a motion to compel. It is apparent from the filings, that plaintiff propounded interrogatories, but not a request for production of documents, on defendants. Defendants apparently timely responded to the interrogatories. However, no request for production of documents was ever propounded on defendants.
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the parties
with the ability to request copies of documents related to the claims
raised in an action. However, plaintiff failed to avail himself the
opportunity to request such documents through the means provided.
Rather, he propounded interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, which
defendants responded to. Plaintiff is not requesting the court issue
an order compelling a response or further response from defendants.
Rather, plaintiff is requesting the court issue an order requiring
defendants to produce a document he never asked for.*fn1
The court declines to issue an order for the production of
documents which plaintiff failed to request during discovery.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for production of documents (Doc. 53) is denied.