Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael Baker v. Perez

October 11, 2011

MICHAEL BAKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PEREZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's September 12, 2011 motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and plaintiff's September 19, 2011 motion for reconsideration. Defendants have not responded to either motion.

After reviewing plaintiff's pending motions, it appears that both are addressed to the undersigned. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion for extension of time is granted, and the motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part.

Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file the motion for reconsideration of the August 24, 2011 order granting in part and denying in part his motion to compel. Local Rule 303(b), states, "rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties. . ." E.D. Local Rule 303(b).

The grounds of plaintiff's motion for an extension of time are that he had inadequate law library access due to the Labor Day holiday which resulted in closure of the law library on September 5 and 6, 2011. Plaintiff also alleges that he had difficulty in obtaining copies. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is granted and his motion for reconsideration filed September 19, 2011 is deemed timely filed.

Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of part of the twenty-seven page August 24, 2011 order addressing his motion to compel. In particular, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's rulings regarding (1) request for production of documents (set one) nos. 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 18; (2) interrogatories to defendant Medina, nos. 1, 2, 3, 14, 16; (3) request for admissions to defendant Medina, no. 96; (4) interrogatories to defendant Swingle, nos. 21, 15; (5) request for admissions to defendant Swingle, nos. 28, 32; (5) request for admissions to defendant Miller, nos. 32, 40, 47; (6) interrogatory to defendant Bowers, no. 14; (7) request for admissions to defendant Bowers, nos. 33, 112, 120; (8) interrogatories to defendant St. Laurents, nos. 6, 12.

In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff alleges that as to several of the at-issue discovery requests, after receiving defendants' initial objections, he served defendants with amended requests addressing the objections. Defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel did not address plaintiff's amended requests. Rather, defendants' opposition addressed the original requests. In the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asks the undersigned to consider his amended requests.

Because the undersigned is concerned that defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel did not address the amended requests, the motion for reconsideration asking the undersigned to consider the amended requests is granted. However, in considering the amended requests, the undersigned orders responses from defendants only as to those amended requests that cure the defects of the original requests.*fn1

Request for Production of Documents

After reviewing plaintiff's arguments for reconsideration of the orders denying his request for production of documents, the undersigned finds no grounds to reconsider the orders regarding request nos. 1, 8, 12, 13, 16 and 18. However, in request no. 10, plaintiff sought all documents regarding medication/distribution policies in effect at High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"). In the opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel, defendants stated that in addition to the documents originally provided, they have supplemented their answers with hundreds of pages of additional documents. Defendants stated that they had nothing more to add. The undersigned denied the motion to compel regarding request no. 10 because plaintiff had not demonstrated how the documents provided did not adequately respond to his request.

In the request for reconsideration, plaintiff states that defendants provided Operational Procedure # 744 regarding pain management in response to request no. 10. (Dkt. 78 at 55.) Plaintiff states that "attachment C" is missing from this document. Plaintiff states that he sent a letter to defense counsel requesting the missing "attachment C," to which he apparently received no response. (Id. at 56.) Defendants are directed to file supplemental briefing addressing whether there is an "attachment C" to Operational Procedure # 744 and, if so, why it was not provided to plaintiff.

Interrogatories, Request for Admissions to Defendant Medina

The undersigned has reviewed the motion for reconsideration regarding interrogatories nos. 1, 2, 3, 14 and 16 addressed to defendant Medina. With regard to interrogatories no. 1, 2, 3 and 14, plaintiff served defendants with amended ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.