The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' MOTIONS
(DOCS. 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 42, 43)
Dispositive Motion Deadline: July 6, 2011
Plaintiff Lynn Charles Beyett ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants V. O'Brien and D. Ragan for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff's motions for leave to file an amended complaint, filed on March 14, 2011 and April 7, 2011; 2) Plaintiff's motion to have appeal inquiry sent to this Court, filed March 14, 2011; 3) Plaintiff's motion to communicate with inmate witnesses, filed March 14, 2011; 4) Plaintiff's motion for discovery, filed March 24, 2011; 5) Defendants' motion to modify the scheduling order, filed May 6, 2011; and 6) Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order, filed May 17, 2011.
I. Plaintiff's Motions To Amend Complaint (Docs. 33 and 39)
Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 33. Defendants filed an opposition on April 7, 2011. Doc. 38.
Plaintiff contends that he named John Doe defendants in his complaint which he had not yet identified. Plaintiff now contends that the John Doe defendant is doctor Kapoor. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claims against doctor Kapoor were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Defs.' Opp'n 1:21-3:7; see Screening Order, Doc. 10. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to amend, but declined. Pl.'s Notice, Doc. 11. The Court thus dismissed Defendant Kapoor from this action. Order Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants, Doc. 12.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows for amendments to the pleadings as justice so requires. Pursuant to the Court's March 15, 2010 Scheduling Order, the deadline to amend pleadings was September 15, 2010. Scheduling Order, Doc. 19. Plaintiff provides no good cause to modify the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiff provides no good cause as to why he should be allowed to amend his complaint. Plaintiff declined to amend his complaint regarding his claims against Defendant Kapoor. To allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint now would cause undue delay in litigating this action and prejudice the opposing party. See Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate how amending his complaint would not be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint will be denied.
II. Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Appeal Inquiry and Discovery (Docs. 34 and 37)
Plaintiff requests that the full file regarding the investigation into Plaintiff's appeal at Pleasant Valley State Prison, where the events at issue occurred, be sent to this Court. Pl.'s Mot., filed March 14, 2011, Doc. 34. Plaintiff contends that as a prisoner, he cannot access the full file. Plaintiff contends that this file will prove his claims in this matter. Plaintiff also filed a motion for discovery regarding the appeal inquiry on March 23, 2011. Doc. 37. Defendants filed their opposition on April 13, 2011. Doc. 40. Plaintiff filed his reply on April 28, 2011. Doc. 41.
Defendants contend that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a motion to compel to be preceded by a discovery request. Defs.' Opp'n 2:18-26, Doc. 40. Defendants also contend that out of an abundance of caution, they responded to Plaintiff's discovery request. Id. at 3:2-7.
First, the Court does not serve as a repository for evidence. First Informational Order ¶ 6, Doc. 3. Second, it appears that Plaintiff is requesting the production of discovery. However, the Court required all discovery requests be served at least thirty days before the discovery cut-off date of March 23, 2011. See Order, filed January 21, 2011, Doc. 31. Thus, discovery requests were to be served by February 21, 2011. Third, if Plaintiff intended to file a motion to compel, Plaintiff submits no proof that he attempted to serve discovery requests before filing this motion for discovery, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Finally, Defendants contend that they responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests.
Thus, Plaintiff's motions regarding discovery, filed March 14, 2011 and March 24, 2011, will be denied, without prejudice to refiling within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, if accompanied by exhibits which ...