UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 21, 2012
M. TANN, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 3 & 4)
Plaintiff Aaron McCoy ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)
Plaintiff has two motions pending before the Court. In his first motion, Plaintiff asks that the Warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran produce a copy of the videotape of the June 9, 2010 incident that underlies Plaintiff's action. (ECF No. 3.) Although this motion is captioned as a request for injunctive relief, it in fact appears to be a discovery request. In his second motion, Plaintiff asks that he be allowed to exceed fifteen pages in his Complaint. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff's motions are now before the Court.
I. MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF VIDEO
Plaintiff initiated this action on October 25, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint, and gave Plaintiff the option of either proceeding on his one cognizable claim or filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff's response is due by June 11, 2011. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed a motion with the Court, in which he asks that the warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran produce a videotape. (ECF No. 3.)
The Court's First Informational Order, which was issued to Plaintiff after he filed his Complaint, specifically states, "No discovery may be conducted without court permission until an answer is filed and the court issues the discovery order." (emphasis in original) (ECF No. 5.) Only after the Complaint has been screened, served and a response filed to it will the Court issue a discovery and scheduling order instructing the parties as to the time in which to conduct discovery.
Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 3) is premature at this time and is DENIED.
II. MOTION TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGE LIMIT ON COMPLAINT
Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking that he be allowed to file a complaint exceeding fifteen pages in length. (ECF No. 4.) The Court has already screened Plaintiff's Complaint and given him the option of either proceeding on his cognizable claim or filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) There is no requirement that the amended complaint be less than fifteen pages in length. (Though Plaintiff is here advised that brevity is more likely to serve his purposes.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to exceed the page limit is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.