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.

Malik Jones v. J.L. Bishop

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 18, 2011

MALIK JONES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J.L. BISHOP, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justin L. Quackenbush Senior United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 81) filed September 29, 2011. The court expedites consideration of the Motion prior to the filing of any response in order to avoid any further delay in the case and because the dispositive motion deadline is November 1, 2011. The Motion states that Defendant Cate has refused to produce responsive documents to Plaintiff's August 2011 Request for Production requesting:

All documentation, legal letters, etc, concerning Jones that was sent to your agent/employee A. Redding CCII of (HS & TH, DAI), (Address P.O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283) in the month of September - December 2007 and the month of January 2008 by Malik Jones K-09065 and Pringle David C-91680.

Plaintiff states that with this discovery request he seeks evidence pertaining to his attempts to exhaust his claims of alleged excessive force stemming from incidents in 2007. Though the court dismissed those claims on November 5, 2010 (ECF No. 62) for lack of exhaustion, the Plaintiff states in his Motion he hopes the court will "reinstate" them once he obtains the requested discovery.

Plaintiff has previously been afforded the opportunity to oppose Defendant's motion to dismiss based on lack of exhaustion. The motion to dismiss was granted and it is too late to attempt to reargue the issue. The discovery period has ended and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the discovery sought would warrant extending the discovery period or reconsideration of the court's Order entered nearly one year ago. As the 2007 claims have been dismissed, discovery on those claims is no longer relevant. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 81) is DENIED.

The Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to Plaintiff and counsel.

Justin L. Quackenbush

20111018

© 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.