Opinion
2:19-cv-2208 KJM KJN P
07-11-2023
MARK MCBOUNDS, Plaintiff, v. D. CLAYS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff previously failed to oppose defendants' motion to compel. On May 22, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file written responses to defendants' interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and ordered to show cause, within thirty days, why the court should not deem admitted defendants' requests for admissions. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to defendants' written discovery requests or to respond to the May 22, 2023 order, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court's order.
When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, those requests are automatically deemed admitted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 36(a). “Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the Court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 36(a).
Here, plaintiff failed to timely respond to the requests for admissions, and also failed to respond to the court's order. Therefore, defendants' requests for admissions are deemed admitted. It is unclear whether or not plaintiff responded to the written discovery requests. Defendants are granted twenty-one days from the date of this order in which to file an appropriate motion.