(PC) Bishop v. Camacho

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TOR AHMADD BISHOP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01762-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 13 v. ECF Nos. 58 & 59 P. CAMACHO 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff has filed two discovery-related motions. ECF Nos. 58 & 59. I will deny both.

18 In his first filing, which plaintiff styles as “Motion: Production of Documents to Defendant,” plaintiff argues the merits of his claims and explains that he wants to submit evidence to prove his allegations. ECF No. 58. He also appears to identify documents that he produced, or intends to produce, in response to defendant’s discovery request. See id. at 1, 3 (“plaintiff must oblige to the request of documents to defendants [sic] as requested,” and “plaintiff will introduce and reply to defendant [sic] documents”). It is not apparent from plaintiff’s motion what relief, if any, he seeks.1 Accordingly, the motion will be denied.

25 In his second motion, plaintiff seeks to compel defendant to respond to one request for Plaintiff asks that the court order him to undergo a polygraph test if one is needed to prove his allegations. As the court previously explained to plaintiff, it does not have the authority to order a polygraph test. See ECF No. 34; Banks v. U.C. Regents, No. 2:14-cv-0460-TLN-KJN 28 P, 2016 WL 3034046, *13 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2016).

1 production: “Any and all grievances, complaints or other documents defendant wrote on plaintiff by the defendant or their agents at CSP-SAC concerning mistreatment of plaintiff by c/o Camacho the defendant—memoranda, investigative files or other documents created in response to such documents since March 4 2020.” ECF No. 59 at 5. Plaintiff argues that he was prohibited from seeking this discovery earlier because correctional officers were harassing him by putting him “in uncomfortable situations and [an] unneeded treatment program design[ed] to punish inmate.” Id. at 5-6. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the motion and request for discovery are untimely. ECF No. 62.

9 Under the scheduling order, all requests for discovery were to be served by July 9, 2021, and all discovery, including the filing of any motions to compel, was to occur by September 10, 2021. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff concedes that he served his request for production on September 22, 2021, more than two months after the deadline for written discovery.2 And he waited until December 27, 2021, more than three months after the discovery deadline, to file this motion to compel. Consequently, both the motion and request are untimely under the court’s scheduling order. See ECF No. 30.

16 To the extent plaintiff argues that he was delayed because correctional officers were harassing him and putting him in uncomfortable situations, the record tells a different story.

18 Between the court’s issuance of the scheduling order and the deadline for discovery, plaintiff filed fourteen documents with the court. See ECF Nos. 31-33; 35-37; 39-47. The court is not persuaded that plaintiff was stopped from serving discovery requests on defendant or seeking to compel defendant’s responses.

22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to compel, ECF Nos. 58 & 59, are denied.

25 2 Plaintiff also seems to claim that he served defendant with a request for production on April 4, 2021. As defendant attests to not receiving any discovery requests before October 4, 2021, ECF No. 62 at 7, the court believes that plaintiff is referring to a document that the court construed as a discovery motion, which plaintiff signed on April 4. ECF No. 32. The court denied that motion as improperly served and advised plaintiff that he would need to serve discovery requests directly upon defendant. ECF No. 56. | 1718 SO ORDERED.

3 ( — Dated: _ May 3, 2022 Jess (Soe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE g il