Opinion
2:21-cv-0480 TLN DB P
10-24-2022
JUAN HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, #1, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel. (ECF No. 33.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the motion to compel without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a document captioned “PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.” (ECF No. 33.) The body of the document contains thirteen separate discovery requests. As set forth in the August 1, 2022, Discovery and Scheduling Order (“DSO”), discovery requests should not be filed with the court. (ECF No. 31 at 5.) Rather, discovery requests should be served on the opposing party. It appears that plaintiff has filed his discovery requests on the docket rather than serving them on defendants. Accordingly, the court will deny the motion to compel without prejudice.
Additionally, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the court will not require plaintiff to reserve his discovery requests solely on defendants. Defendants are instructed to respond to plaintiff's requests for production of documents described in his October 12, 2022, filing (ECF No. 33) on the docket.
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 33) is denied without prejudice; and
2. Defendants shall respond to plaintiff's request for production of documents as set forth in the DSO. (See ECF No. 31 at 5.)