(PC) Lewis v. Ugwueze

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 23, 2022
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00596
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DARONTA T. LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00596-AWI-SAB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL

14 DR. G. UGWUEZE, et al., (ECF Nos. 114, 125) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Daronta T. Lewis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed February 2, 2022.1 (ECF 20 No. 114.) Plaintiff filed the same motion again on February 18, 2022. (ECF No. 125.) 21 Defendant filed an opposition on February 23, 2022. (ECF No. 126.) The Court deems 22 Plaintiff’s motion submitted as a reply is not necessary. 23 While Plaintiff constructively filed the initial motion to compel prior to the discovery 24 deadline in place at that time, i.e., January 24, 2022, Defendant submits, under penalty of 25

1 With application of the mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s initial motion to compel was constructively filed on January 1, 26 2022. (ECF No. 114). Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 27 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating the “mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners”). 1 | perjury, that the discovery was not served on Defendant. (Declaration of Matthew Roman { 2, 2 | ECF No. 126.) In addition, the Court recently extended the discovery deadline from January 24, 3 | 2022 to May 3, 2022, and Defendant is willing to provide responses to Plaintiff's written 4 | discovery requests, pursuant to that order. (ECF Nos. 124, 126.) Accordingly, because 5 | Defendant never received Plaintiff's discovery requests Plaintiff's motions to compel shall be 6 | denied and Defendant will be allowed forty-five days to respond. 7 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's motions to compel (ECF No. 114, 125) are DENIED; and 9 2. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall 10 file a response to Plaintiffs discovery requests attached to the motions to compel. 11 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 14 | Dated: _ February 23, 2022

Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28