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 Crudup v. M. Jericoff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 29, 2012

MICHAEL CRUDUP,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. JERICOFF, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT

(DOC. 29)

Plaintiff Michael Crudup ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant M. Jericoff for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On January 5, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to compel. Doc. 29. On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his opposition. Doc. 36. On March 29, 2012, Defendant filed his reply. Doc. 37. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Defendant moved to compel responses from Plaintiff for interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions, served on Plaintiff on July 18, 2011. Pl.'s Mot. 2:4-21. Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to provide any responses within forty-five days as required by the Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order.

Plaintiff contends that he never received Defendant's motion to compel. Pl.'s Opp'n 1-2. Plaintiff contends that the motion to compel should be denied because he served responses on December 4, 2011. Id. at 42. In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not receive the motion to compel because he did not update his address from Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California to the California Institution for Men in Chino, California.

The Court finds Defendant's motion to be moot. Plaintiff has responded to Defendant's discovery requests. Imposition of expenses would be unjust under the circumstances. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to compel, filed January 5, 2012, is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120629

© 1992-2012 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.