From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gleason v. Lindquist

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 30, 2021
2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P

09-30-2021

STANLEY GLEASON, Plaintiff, v. T. LINDQUIST, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed two motions to compel discovery in which he alleges that defendant failed to respond to his discovery requests within the prescribed deadline. ECF Nos. 75, 77. Defendant opposes the motions on the grounds that she timely responded to all of plaintiff's discovery requests. ECF Nos. 80-86. Because defendant timely served responses to the requests, and plaintiff has identified no other objections, the motions will be denied. However, since it appears that plaintiff did not receive a copy of the responses, defendant will be required to re-serve plaintiff with the responses if she has not done so already.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions to compel, ECF Nos. 75, 77, are DENIED.

2. Within fourteen days of the filing of this order, defendant shall serve plaintiff with another copy of her discovery responses if she has not already done so. DATED: September 30, 2021


Summaries of

Gleason v. Lindquist

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 30, 2021
2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)
Case details for

Gleason v. Lindquist

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY GLEASON, Plaintiff, v. T. LINDQUIST, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 30, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-1203 JAM AC P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)