Anthony J. Davis v. Hurtado

Opinion

ANTHONY J. DAVIS, No. 1:25-cv-00925-JLT-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE v. (ECF Nos. 25, 31, 32)

Defendant.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2026, and May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery. (ECF Nos. 25, 31, 32.) On May 4, 2026, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s April 13, 2026, motion to compel. (ECF No. 33.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions shall be denied as premature. I. Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order filed January 22, 2026, the discovery deadline is September 22, 2026, and all responses to discovery requests are due forty-five days after the request was served. (ECF No. 19.) With regard to the April 13, 2026, motion to compel, Defendant submits that Plaintiff's discovery requests were signed and dated for March 15, 2026, and Defendant received the requests on March 24, 2026. (ECF No. 33-1, Declaration of Sienna Sweiven (Sweiven Decl.) at § 2.) Thus, the due date of the discovery responses according to the date of Plaintiff's signature was April 30, 2026, and Defendant sent Plaintiff the verified responses on this date. (Sweiven Decl. at 3, Ex. B.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel is premature. With regard to the motions to compel, filed on May 4, 2026, the Court finds that the motions were filed on April 23, 2026, 1.e., the date Plaintiff apparently signed the motions. (ECF No. 31 at 3; ECF No. 32 at 3.) See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities for mailing); Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1178 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We assume that [petitioner] turned his petition over to prison authorities on the same day he signed it and apply the mailbox rule.”). Plaintiff states that he mailed his written discovery requests to Defendant on March 13, 2026, and has not received a response. (ECF No. 31 at 1; ECF No. 32 at 1.) Based on Plaintiff's contention that the requests were mailed on March 13, 2026, any response by Defendant was not due until April 27, 2026, yet Plaintiffs filed his motions to compel on April 23, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions to compel are premature. Il. Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to compel, (ECF Nos. 25, 31, 32), are DENIED as PREMATURE. 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le Dated: _May 14, 2026 _ ef STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge