UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 14, 2010
JAMES SUKNAICH, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 180 DAY EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. 14) AND DENYING MOTION FOR ACCESS (DOC. 15)
Plaintiff James Suknaich ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for 180 day Extension of Timeto study and gain access to logs and reports (Docket # 14) and Plaintiff's Motion for Access to Logs, Duty Roster, and Incident Reports (Docket # 15). These motions in effect seek discovery on the claims asserted in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
The discovery phase of this litigation is not yet open. Plaintiff is directed to paragraph eight of the Court's First Informational Order, filed March 16, 2009. In that order, Plaintiff was specifically informed that he may not conduct discovery until Defendants file an answer and the Court issues a discovery order. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). If the Court finds that any of Plaintiff's claims are cognizable, it will order the United States Marshall to serve the complaint on the relevant defendants. Once an answer is received, the Court will issue a scheduling order. Until that time, Plaintiff is not entitled to conduct any discovery.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for 180 day extension of time to study and gain access to logs and reports (Docket # 14) is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Access to Logs, Duty Roster, and Incident Reports (Docket # 15) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.