Gallardo v. Rainwater

Full title: JUAN LEWIS GALLARDO, Plaintiff, v. D. RAINWATER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Nov 9, 2015

2:14-cv-1339 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2015)

Opinion

JUAN LEWIS GALLARDO, Plaintiff, v. D. RAINWATER, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-1339 KJM CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. November 9, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims which remain arise under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Rainwater, Hougland, Pickens and Von Rader (defendants) for excessive force. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel.

         To the extent plaintiff is requesting that the court compel answers to discovery requests served by plaintiff after the March 3, 2015 deadline for serving discovery requests, ¹ plaintiff's request is denied as he never sought, nor obtained an extension, of the deadline. To the extent plaintiff is asking that defendants comply with the initial disclosure provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), plaintiff's request is also denied as defendants are exempted from those provisions because plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. See Fed R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv).

1 In the court's January 14, 2015 scheduling and discovery order (ECF No. 17), the court informed the parties that all requests for discovery had to be served no later than 60 days prior to the May 1, 2015 discovery cutoff. On March 24, 2015, defendants were granted an extension of time to respond to certain discovery requests served upon defendants on February 17, 2015. At no time was the deadline for serving new requests extended.

         With respect to the remainder of plaintiff's motion, plaintiff's fails to adequately identify any discovery response by any defendant which is insufficient under the law. In order for this court to grant a motion to compel, plaintiff must identify a specific discovery request made by him, a defendant's response thereto, and then plaintiff must show how the response is insufficient. Plaintiff has not done this. Instead, in his lengthy motion, he mostly discusses in generalities the information he believes defendants should forward him. Because plaintiff has not shown that any defendant has provided an insufficient response to a particular request for discovery, plaintiff's motion to compel will be denied.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 31) is denied.