Fields v. Junious et al
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/20/2011 denying 26 Motion to Compel without prejudice. (Lundstrom, T)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
9
10
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01771-AWI-DLB PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
(DOC. 26)
11
MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,
AMENDED MOTION DUE BY JULY 8, 2011
12
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
16
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
17
against Defendants Maurice Junious, R. Magvas, S. Marsh, L. Molina, J. Tucker, L. Cruz, R.
18
Davis, K. Foley, D. B. Hernandez, and Jennifer Jones. On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a
19
motion to compel. At the time of filing, Defendants had yet to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery
20
requests. The parties subsequently filed a notice of stipulation on February 18, 2011, which
21
purported that the parties stipulated to suspending Plaintiff’s motion to compel in order to
22
provide Defendants adequate time to respond to his discovery requests. The Court ordered the
23
parties to file a status update. Plaintiff filed a status update on May 3, 2011, indicating that he
24
intended to proceed with his motion to compel. Defendants filed their status update on May 25,
25
2011, indicating that Plaintiff had refused to sign the stipulation.
26
An examination of Plaintiff’s motion to compel indicates that it is deficient. Plaintiff
27
fails to include Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests. Furthermore, it appears that
28
Defendants supplemented their responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Court cannot
1
1
adjudicate Plaintiff’s motion to compel without Defendants’ responses and an explanation of
2
why Defendants’ responses are insufficient. See L.R. 250.3(c) (“Requests for production,
3
responses and proofs of service thereof shall not be filed unless and until there is a proceeding in
4
which the request, response, or proof of service is at issue.”).
5
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed January
6
31, 2011, is DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing the motion by the discovery cut-off date of
7
July 8, 2011.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 20, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
