(PC) Ellesbury v. Fernandez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLARENCE VERN ELLESBURY, No. 2: 18-cv-2744 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER J. FERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On January 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Plaintiff[’s] Request for Ex Parte Motion.” (ECF No. 54.) In his request, plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed or refused to provide plaintiff access to witnesses and requested documents, and claims that he requested 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 thereto. Moreover, discovery closed on January 10, 2020. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff’s request was signed on January 18, 2020, and presented to prison staff for mailing on January 20, 2020.1 Thus, plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses is untimely and is denied.

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. 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 | 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