(PC) McFadden v. Wong ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONTAE LARAIL MCFADDEN, No. 2:22-cv-1234 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAM WONG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has filed a motion to 18 compel discovery. ECF No. 33. However, the deadline for filing motions to compel discovery 19 was December 18, 2023. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely by nearly a month 20 and provides no explanation for the delay in filing. Moreover, even if the court were willing to 21 overlook the untimeliness of the filing, the motion does not reproduce the requests at issue or 22 defendant’s responses and makes only general assertions regarding why defendant’s responses 23 were deficient. 24 The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 25 moving party plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel and, 26 for each disputed response, why defendant’s objection is not justified. 27 28 Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. 1 |} Dist. LEXIS 53142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). Without the original requests; defendants’ 2 || responses, including any objections; and plaintiff's explanation as to why the responses are 3 || deficient, the court is unable to determine whether production should be compelled. For all these 4 || reasons, the motion will be denied. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 33) 6 || is DENIED. 7 | DATED: January 24, 2024 ~ 8 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28