Opinion
No. CIV S-06-2138 JAM DAD P.
October 3, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 8, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. Therein, he claims that he served his initial discovery request on defense counsel, but counsel refuses to respond. On September 17, 2008, defense counsel filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion to compel. He notes that plaintiff served his discovery request on May 6, 2008, well before defendant Duc waived service and moved to dismiss this action. Defense counsel further notes that, on August 11, 2008, defendant Duc sent plaintiff a letter informing him that he would respond to his discovery request if the assigned district judge in this case denied his pending motion to dismiss.
On October 2, 2008, the assigned district judge in this case denied defendant Duc's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff's motion to compel as premature. If defense counsel fails to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests in accordance with the court's discovery order, he may file a new motion to compel.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's September 8, 2008 motion to compel (Doc. No. 26) is denied as premature.