(PC) Henderson v. Rattan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN HENDERSON, No. 2:22-cv-1218 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RATTAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a request for the court to determine 18 the sufficiency of the defendant’s discovery responses, which the court construes as a motion to 19 compel. ECF No. 29. 20 Plaintiff requests that the court determine the sufficiency of defendant’s discovery 21 responses, claiming that defendant has objected to all but eight of his discovery requests, made 22 meritless objections, and provided partial, evasive responses. Id. 29 at 1-2. However, plaintiff 23 fails to specify which responses are at issue, and even assuming he is seeking to compel further 24 responses to all of his requests, plaintiff fails to explain how each response or objection is 25 deficient as to each particular request and instead makes general assertions that the objections are 26 meritless and the responses incomplete. Id. at 1. 27 The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 28 moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of ] which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not 2 justified. 3 || Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. 4 || Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). 5 Without further identification as to the requests at issue and elaboration as to why 6 || defendant’s responses are deficient or the objections are not justified, plaintiff has failed to meet 7 | his burden in bringing a motion to compel and the court is unable to evaluate the sufficiency of g || defendant’s responses or the appropriateness of their objections. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 10 1. Plaintiffs request to determine the sufficiency of defendant’s discovery responses 11 || (ECF No. 29) is construed as a motion to compel and the Clerk of the Court is directed to update 12 || the docket accordingly; and 13 2. The motion to compel (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice to a motion in the 14 || proper form. 15 || DATED: June 15, 2023 ~ 16 Athuwn—Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28