UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 18, 2009
ERIC LEE HACKETT, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF FRESNO FAX AREA EXPRESS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS AND REQUESTS (Docs. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13)
Plaintiff, Eric Lee Hacket, ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner, appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the a complaint on January 20, 2009. On March 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, "Rule 201 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts and Opportunity to be Heard." (Doc. 9). Plaintiff filed another document with the same title on March 16, 2009. (Doc. 13). It is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting in these documents, especially since the latest submission is only a partial filing. However, it appears that Plaintiff is requesting that the court take judicial notice of an incident that serves as the basis for Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff is advised that there is no legal basis for these requests and they are denied.
Similarly, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Discovery entitled, "Rule 30 Depositions Upon Oral Examination," a Motion for Service by the United States Marshal requesting that the Marshal execute all process and orders issued by the court, and a Motion for the Issuances of Numerous Subpoenas. (Docs. 10, 11, and 12). As noted in this court's informational order issued on January 27, 2009 (Doc. 5), no discovery will be conducted until an answer is filed and the court issues an order opening discovery. Plaintiff's case is currently in the screening process. As noted in the screening order if, after filing an amended complaint, it is determined that Plaintiff has cognizable claims, only then will the amended complaint be served on the defendants. Service will be by the United States Marshals. After the defendants answer the amended complaint, the court then will issue a order setting discovery deadlines. Plaintiff's current motions are therefore premature and as such, are hereby denied.
Plaintiff is advised that he should file an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions provided in the screening order if he believes he has cognizable claims. Finally, until such time as he is authorized by the Court to do so, Plaintiff shall refrain from filing further discovery related motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.