ORDER, DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has recently been appointed counsel, but before the appointment he filed several pro se motions.
On March 9, 2011, the court ordered defendants to respond to plaintiff's December 3, 2010 motion for injunctive relief. On March 10, 2011, plaintiff filed another motion for injunctive relief. Defendants filed their oppositions to the two motions on March 14 and 16. Plaintiff filed reply briefs on March 21 and 28.
The court also issued a discovery and scheduling order on March 9. Plaintiff filed a motion for a 90-day extension of time of all discovery dates, a motion to compel counsel, and a motion to compel CDCR to turn over documents on March 24. Defendants responded to these motions on March 29; plaintiff replied on April 6; defendants responded to his reply on April 11; and plaintiff responded to defendants' response on April 20.*fn1
I. Request for Modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order
Plaintiff asks that the dates in the scheduling order be extended 90 days. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff's request to extend discovery deadlines. Dckt. No. 95. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's request is granted and the discovery and scheduling order is modified as set out below. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
II. Request to Compel Documents
Plaintiff seeks to compel CDCR to turn over documents, including 602s and documents responsive to defendants' discovery requests. Dckt. No. 93. Plaintiff states that he does not know how to obtain the documents, but asks the court to mail defendants copies of all of the documents he has submitted to the court.
Plaintiff does not allege that he has requested documents from defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Therefore the court must deny his motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3), (4) (motion to compel can be brought if a party fails to answer or respond to a discovery request or gives an evasive or incomplete answer).
Plaintiff is informed that defendants already have access to all of the documents he has submitted to the court. Moreover, he is only obligated to produce documents to defendants that are in his "possession, custody or control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. If he is unable to obtain copies of the documents that defendants request, he need not produce those documents to defendants.
III. Motions for Preliminary Injunction
As set out in the court's previous order, plaintiff's first motion for injunctive relief states in part:
Plaintiff reasserts that he is suffering irreparable injury by refusal of medical treatment by being in defendants' custody, by still being forced to walk great distances, despite his medical disabilities . . . . Deliberately being kept away from the legal library and services, which will hurt his complaint against the defendants, and create a deliberate indifference and biasness, refusal to treat his Hep C mental health issue and others [illegible] in the late Nov motion . . . like the pain meds that I should be on and have not been given back upon my return from out of state . . . this current retaliation is real and tangible . . .
In a separate filing, plaintiff states the following in support of his injunction request: after two weeks at Deuel Vocational Institute, he had not been issued his mental health, pain, asthma, and diabetic medications; he had not been put on the kitchen list for a kosher diet; he was not issued an ID; and he has not been issued his Olson review of his files. See Dckt. No. 61 at 1-2. He further states that despite his mobility and pain issues, he has been refused a wheelchair and has been forced to walk over 1000 feet round trip to the dining hall. Id. at 4.
Defendants' opposition does not address the merits of plaintiff's specific complaints. Dckt. No. 88. Rather, defendants argue that the court does not have jurisdiction to grant plaintiff's motion. At the time plaintiff filed the request for injunctive relief he was incarcerated at Deuel Vocational Institution; however, at the time of defendants' opposition, he was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Defendants also argue that the court may not enjoin "defendants not before it;" that "it is obvious" that plaintiff seeks to enjoin CDCR, "and that entity is ...