UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 19, 2011
WILLIAM B. PRUITT, PLAINTIFF,
CLARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT (Doc. 29)
Plaintiff William B. Pruitt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 26, 2007. This action is proceeding against Defendants Swinford, Bonilla, Lara, Curtiss, and Wan on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment strip search claim. *fn1 On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his interrogatories, set one, served on Defendant Swinford. Defendant Swinford filed an opposition on May 18, 2011.
Defendant Swinford is in the process of preparing supplemental responses to Plaintiff's full set of interrogatories, which will include information not available at the time the initial responses were prepared. Were the Court to reach Plaintiff's motion on the merits and find in his favor, the Court would order Defendant Swinford to serve supplemental responses. In light of the fact that Defendant Swinford is currently undertaking that very process, Plaintiff's motion to compel is moot and there is no justification for an expenditure of resources to reach the merits. *fn2
If she has not already done so, Defendant Swinford shall serve her supplemental responses on Plaintiff within forty-five days. If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the supplemental responses, he is not precluded from filing a motion to compel once he receives and reviews the responses.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed on April 29, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED as moot, and Defendant SHALL serve her supplemental responses within forty-five days from the date of service of this order, if she has not done so already.
IT IS SO ORDERED.