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.

Michael Gonzales v. Price

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 21, 2011

MICHAEL GONZALES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
PRICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF Nos. 46, 53, & 58) CLARIFICATION DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Gonzales ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed multiple motions which appear to make discovery-related requests. (ECF Nos. 46, 53, & 58.) The Court, unsure of what Plaintiff was requesting, asked Defendants to respond to the requests. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants responded on September 19, 2011 stating that they attempted to get clarification from Plaintiff regarding at least one of Plaintiff's Motions, but Plaintiff did not respond, and instead filed another motion with the Court. (ECF No. 69.)

After reviewing Plaintiff's Motions and Defendants' response, the Court remains unclear as to what action, if any, Plaintiff is requesting from the Court. In the July 13, 2011 Motion, Plaintiff requests verification of funds; specification of Defendants' employment dates; certification of legal and confidential mail; certification of law suits filed in state and federal court; 602 appeals and citizens complaints; and photos, records, reports of internal affairs investigation against Defendants, among many other requests. (ECF No. 46.) In the August 18, 2011 Motion, Plaintiff requests admission of letters, notes, trial transcripts; certification of documents, case law, prison policies, medical records, chronos, letters; admissions of the truth of the matters, statements, and opinions of fact of this case; among other requests. (ECF No. 58.)

If these are to be construed as requests for production and admission from Defendants, then this should have been served on and requested from Defendants. If these requests and motions are to be construed as motions to compel, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendants failed to make appropriate disclosures or made incomplete disclosures. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) (a motion to compel may be brought "[i]f a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a)" or replies to a discovery request with an "evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.")

In the August 12, 2011 Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to comply with the first motion for discovery. (ECF No. 53.) Again, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he requested disclosures and that they were denied by Defendants. Thus, a motion to compel is not proper.

Plaintiff must clarify his Motions filed July 13, 2011, August 12, 2011, and August 18, 2011. (ECF Nos. 46, 53, & 58.) Plaintiff must include what action, relief, or result he is requesting, who he is requesting it from, how his requests relate to discovery in this action, and anything else that would aid the Court in making a determination. Plaintiff must also attempt to conform his requests to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's clarification is due within twenty days of the date of service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1j0bbc

20110921

© 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.