United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The matter was referred to this court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On
September 28, 2018, defendants D. Calderon, E. Cervantes, M.
Fong, T. Fuller, J. Munoz, K. Rose, M. Thompson, and S.
Williamson filed a motion to compel further
discovery. (ECF No. 61). Plaintiff has not opposed the
motion. For the reasons stated below, defendants’
motion will be granted.
plaintiff’s first amended complaint
(“FAC”), he contends that in November 2014,
defendants used excessive force when handcuffing and removing
him from his cell. (See ECF No. 10 at 5). In
addition, plaintiff contends that defendants violated his
First Amendment rights when they subsequently paraded him
through the prison yard after his boxer shorts had fallen,
leaving his buttocks and genitalia exposed to onlookers.
Plaintiff further alleges that violations of right also
occurred when defendants punched and kicked him as he lay
handcuffed on the ground in a sally port and when they
subsequently filed false reports against him. He argues that
these acts of defendants were retaliatory in nature and that
they occurred because he had previously filed grievances
against prison authorities. Therefore, he asserts,
defendants’ actions were violative of both his Eighth
and First Amendment rights. (See generally ECF No.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
November 27, 2017, the court issued a discovery and
scheduling order for the named defendants. (ECF No. 27). At
that time, discovery was to be conducted until March 16,
2018, and pretrial motions were to be filed no later than
June 8, 2018. (Id. at 5).
January 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension
of time to respond to defendants’ interrogatories. (ECF
No. 32). As a result, the court extended the scheduling
deadlines out eight weeks changing the discovery cut-off date
to May 11, 2018, and the pretrial motion cut-off date to
August 3, 2018. (See ECF No. 33 at 2).
April 12, 2018, defendants filed multiple motions to compel
further responses to discovery. (ECF Nos. 38-45). On April 19,
2018, defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and
scheduling order. (ECF No. 46). In it, defendants asked the
court to postpone the May 11, 2018, discovery deadline and
the August 3, 2018, dispositive motion
deadline. (See id.).
1, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion to modify
the scheduling order. (ECF No. 48). As a result, the close of
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines were extended to
sixty days after the district court had ruled on
defendants’ March 30, 2018, request that it review the
court’s July 10, 2017, screening order. (See
17, 2018, defendants filed a motion for clarification
regarding the court’s “May 1, 2018 order (ECF No.
52), ” order which had granted their motion to
modify the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 55). In
the request for clarification, defendants inquired whether
discovery proceedings “[had] indeed been stayed.”
(Id.) (brackets added). At the same time, defendants
moved for a grant of a sixty-day extension of time to respond
to plaintiff’s April 20, 2018, discovery requests if
discovery proceedings had not been stayed. (Id. at
2). For various reasons, one of which being that the specific
order for which defendants were asking for clarification was
unclear, the court did not address defendants’ filing.
August 21, 2018, defendants filed a notice of withdrawal of
the motions to compel they had filed on April 12, 2018. (ECF
No. 59). This was due to the fact that the parties had met,
and plaintiff had provided additional discovery to
defendants. (See id. at 1-2).
September 11, 2018, the district court judge assigned to this
matter adopted the findings and recommendations of this
court. (ECF No. 60). As a result, the three defendants that
had previously been dismissed by this court prior to the
vacation of that order were dismissed again. (See
ECF No. 60 at 2).
September 28, 2018, defendants filed a motion to compel
further responses to discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B). (ECF No. 61). Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the motion. Therefore,
defendants’ motion is submitted, and the court
considers it herein.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B): Failure to
Cooperate in Discovery
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) states:
(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or
(3) Specific Motions.
To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking
discovery may move for an order compelling an answer,
designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be
. . . .
(iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted
under Rule 33.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1): Scope of
scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal
Rule of Civil ...