UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 7, 2011
DIANE SALBER, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CASE STATUS (Doc. 32) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT (Doc. 33)
Plaintiff Archie Cranford, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 14, 2008. On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the status of his case, and on June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel.
The Court does not provide status reports and Plaintiff's motion is therefore ORDERED DISREGARDED. *fn1
Plaintiff's motion to compel is not properly supported and must be denied. If Plaintiff chooses to renew his motion, he must make a showing that he properly served his discovery requests on Defendants' counsel and that either (1) more than forty-five days passed without receipt of a response or (2) the responses received were deficient. *fn2 If responses were received but are being challenged by Plaintiff, he is required to provide a copy of the responses, identify which responses are at issue, and set forth why the responses are deficient.
Plaintiff's conclusory sentence that he "filed a set of admissions and a set of interrogatories" but received no response falls well short of providing the Court with sufficient information to issue a ruling on the merits of this discovery dispute. (Doc. 33.) Accordingly, Defendants are relieved of their obligation to file a response to the motion, Local Rule 230(l), and the motion is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED, without prejudice to renewal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.