(PC) Ellesbury v. Fernandez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE VERN ELLESBURY, No. 2: 18-cv-2744 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. FERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Plaintiff[’s] Request for Ex Parte 18 Motion.” (ECF No. 54.) In his request, plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed or refused to 19 provide plaintiff access to witnesses and requested documents, and claims that he requested 20 interrogatories on September 6, 2019, but counsel for defendants has not yet responded. 21 Plaintiff’s motion appears to be in the nature of a motion to compel discovery responses. 22 However, plaintiff failed to append copies of the specific discovery requests or any responses 23 thereto. Moreover, discovery closed on January 10, 2020. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff’s request was 24 signed on January 18, 2020, and presented to prison staff for mailing on January 20, 2020.1 Thus, 25 plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses is untimely and is denied. 26 27 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the Court deems the pleading constructively filed on the date it is signed. Roberts v. 28 Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request (ECF No. 54), construed 2 | as amotion to compel, is denied as untimely. 3 Dated: January 30, 2020 Acid) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE felle2744.mte UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28