Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ivan Ray Carter, Jr v. A. Fernandez

February 1, 2011

IVAN RAY CARTER, JR.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT (DOC. 70)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. 75)

Plaintiff Ivan Ray Carter, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). This action is proceeding against Defendants A Fernandez, R. Reynaga, H. Carrillo, L. Ceasear, and Darren Jones for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court is: 1) Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a motion to compel, filed October 1, 2010, and 2) Plaintiff's motion to compel. Docs. 70, 75.

I. Motion For Extension of Time

Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion to compel. The Court adjudicated Plaintiff's other motions to compel on October 22, 2010, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel regarding his second request for production of documents only. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel on November 1, 2010. Thus, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is HEREBY DISREGARDED as moot. The Court will now address Plaintiff's motion to compel.

II. November 1, 2010 Motion To Compel

Plaintiff seeks further response to his second request for production of documents.

Defendants did not file any opposition. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(1). Plaintiff contends that Defendants should be compelled to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff attaches Defendants' responses to his motion.

Request No. 1: "Produce and relinquish the documents of policy and procedurs [sic] related to excessive use of force, per departmental Operational Manual 'DOM'."

Defendants responded by stating that they had previously produced all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. As there was no showing by Plaintiff that Defendants have not responded with responsive documents, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 1 is denied.

Request No. 2: "Produce and relinquish any and all statements/incident reports written by participants and/or non-participants in the excessive use of force Dated: April 13, 2007."

Defendants responded by stating that they had previously produced all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. As there was no showing by Plaintiff that Defendants have not responded with responsive documents, Plaintiff's motion to compel further response to Request For Production No. 2 is denied.

Request No. 3: "Produce and relinquish unredacted and unedited ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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