Opinion
2:19-cv-1751 JAM KJN P
08-04-2021
TEVIN LEE HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. R. VALENCIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel. (ECF No. 69.) In this motion, plaintiff requests that defendant provide him with his medical and mental health records, C-File records and Unit Health Records. (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
Plaintiff previously filed a motion to compel on April 13, 2020, requesting that prison officials at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”) or California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) provide him with his medical and mental health records. (ECF No. 32.) On June 9, 2020, the undersigned ordered the Warden of Corcoran to respond to plaintiff's April 13, 2020 motion to compel. (ECF No. 34.) On June 23, 2020, the Warden of Corcoran filed a response to plaintiff's motion to compel. (ECF No. 36.)
On July 1, 2020, the undersigned denied plaintiffs April 13, 2020 motion to compel. (ECF No. 37.) The undersigned found that based on the Warden's response to plaintiffs motion to compel, the litigation of plaintiff s claim that he was denied access to his medical and mental health records was better left until after the settlement conference. (Id.)
On June 3, 2021, a settlement conference was held in this action. This action did not settle. On June 21, 2021, plaintiff filed the pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 69.)
On July 12, 2021, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiffs pending motion compel. (ECF No. 72.) Defendant argues that plaintiffs motion to compel should be denied because it was filed before the court issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Defendant also argues that plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he served defendant with a request for production of the documents he seeks in the motion to compel.
The Discovery and Scheduling order was filed on July 6, 2021. (ECF No. 71.)
As discussed above, plaintiff previously requested most of the at-issue documents from prison officials at Corcoran. However, in the pending motion, plaintiff requests that defendant be ordered to provide him with the at-issue documents. Plaintiff apparently did not serve defendant with a request for production of documents before filing the motion to compel.
Plaintiff may file a motion to compel only if he is dissatisfied with defendant's response to his discovery request. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to compel is denied as premature because he did not serve defendant with a request for production of documents.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel (ECF No. 69) is denied.