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.

Brandon Rackliffe v. Rocha

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 1, 2011

BRANDON RACKLIFFE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROCHA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED MOTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (DOC. 46, 48)

Brandon Rackliffe ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner currently detained in Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Rocha and Medina for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed his motion to compel further response to Plaintiff's discovery requests from Defendants. Pl.'s Mot. Compel, Doc. 46. On July 20, 2010, Defendant Rocha filed his opposition. Doc. 48.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion to compel. Plaintiff submits his Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, which Plaintiff contends Defendants did not adequately respond to. However, Plaintiff does not state with specificity which of Defendants' responses were inadequate. The Court is disinclined to guess as to which discovery requests Plaintiff seeks further responses.

Defendants also did not file a full opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel, failing to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests as to Defendant Medina until recently. See Michael A. Terhorst Decl., filed Nov. 17, 2010, Doc. 52.

Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended motion to compel. Plaintiff is to list with specificity which responses Plaintiff finds inadequate and why. Defendants will then have twenty-one days after the date of service of the motion to compel in which they may file any opposition. Plaintiff will then have ten days after the date of service of Defendants' opposition in which to file a reply.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed July 1, 2010, is DENIED without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended motion to compel, as stated herein;

3. Defendants are GRANTED twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of Plaintiff's motion to compel in which to file an opposition, if any;

4. Plaintiff is GRANTED ten (10) days from the date of service of Defendants' opposition to file a reply; and

5. If Plaintiff does not timely file a motion to compel as stated herein, the Court will construe Plaintiff as waiving any motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110201

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.