Aung

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GREGORY MURRAY, No. 2:19-cv-2114 JAM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER WARDEN, et al., Defendants. 16 On January 10, 2022, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to compel discovery responses from defendant. ECF No. 44. However, discovery in this action closed on November 22, 2021, ECF No. 39, and even if the court were to accept the untimely filing, plaintiff has failed to identify what discovery responses he seeks to compel. The Court does not hold prisoners proceeding pro se to the same standards that it holds attorneys. However, at a minimum, as the 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 justified. 24 Waterbury v. Scribner, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB PC, 2008 WL 2018432, at *1, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53142, at…