Cranford v. Salber et al
Filing
34
ORDER DISREGARDING Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Case Status; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Compel, Without Prejudice, as Procedurally Deficient signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/7/2011. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00063-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CASE STATUS
v.
(Doc. 32)
12
DIANE SALBER, et al.,
13
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AS
PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT
Defendants.
14
(Doc. 33)
15
/
16
17
Plaintiff Archie Cranford, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
18
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 14, 2008. On May 12, 2011, Plaintiff
19
filed a motion seeking the status of his case, and on June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel.
20
The Court does not provide status reports and Plaintiff’s motion is therefore ORDERED
21
DISREGARDED.1
22
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is not properly supported and must be denied. If Plaintiff
23
chooses to renew his motion, he must make a showing that he properly served his discovery requests
24
on Defendants’ counsel and that either (1) more than forty-five days passed without receipt of a
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s motion evidences his awareness that there is a scheduling order in place in this action.
1
1
response or (2) the responses received were deficient.2 If responses were received but are being
2
challenged by Plaintiff, he is required to provide a copy of the responses, identify which responses
3
are at issue, and set forth why the responses are deficient.
4
Plaintiff’s conclusory sentence that he “filed a set of admissions and a set of interrogatories”
5
but received no response falls well short of providing the Court with sufficient information to issue
6
a ruling on the merits of this discovery dispute. (Doc. 33.) Accordingly, Defendants are relieved
7
of their obligation to file a response to the motion, Local Rule 230(l), and the motion is HEREBY
8
ORDERED DENIED, without prejudice to renewal.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated:
ie14hj
June 7, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for an additional three days
for service by mail, and the Court’s discovery order, which provides a forty-five day response period, Defendants are
required to serve their responses by mail no later than forty-eight days after service of the requests by Plaintiff.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
