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.

Kevin E. Fields v. Maurice Junious

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 20, 2011

KEVIN E. FIELDS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MAURICE JUNIOUS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 26) AMENDED MOTION DUE BY JULY 8, 2011

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Maurice Junious, R. Magvas, S. Marsh, L. Molina, J. Tucker, L. Cruz, R. Davis, K. Foley, D. B. Hernandez, and Jennifer Jones. On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. At the time of filing, Defendants had yet to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. The parties subsequently filed a notice of stipulation on February 18, 2011, which purported that the parties stipulated to suspending Plaintiff's motion to compel in order to provide Defendants adequate time to respond to his discovery requests. The Court ordered the parties to file a status update. Plaintiff filed a status update on May 3, 2011, indicating that he intended to proceed with his motion to compel. Defendants filed their status update on May 25, 2011, indicating that Plaintiff had refused to sign the stipulation.

An examination of Plaintiff's motion to compel indicates that it is deficient. Plaintiff fails to include Defendants' responses to his discovery requests. Furthermore, it appears that Defendants supplemented their responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. The Court cannot adjudicate Plaintiff's motion to compel without Defendants' responses and an explanation of why Defendants' responses are insufficient. See L.R. 250.3(c) ("Requests for production, responses and proofs of service thereof shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in which the request, response, or proof of service is at issue.").

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed January 31, 2011, is DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing the motion by the discovery cut-off date of July 8, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110620

© 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.