Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Craig Cooper v. Synthia Sely

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 26, 2012

CRAIG COOPER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SYNTHIA SELY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MISCELLANEOUS DISCOVERY MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 31, 32)

Plaintiff Craig Cooper is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed April 1, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff and Defendant have declined to extend Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes and proceedings. (Decline Magistrate, ECF Nos. 3, 22.)

On February 28, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated cognizable claims against Synthia Sely, Licensed Vocational Nurse ("LVN") at Pleasant Valley State Prison ("PVSP"), for medical indifference under the Eighth Amendment and state law negligence. (Order Finding Claims, ECF No. 9); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). On May 15, 2012, Defendant filed her Answer. (Answer, ECF No. 13.) On May 16, 2012, the Court filed its Discovery and Scheduling Order (Discov and Sched. Order, ECF No. 14), setting a Discovery Cut-Off Date of January 16, 2013, and a Dispositive Motion Deadline of March 25, 2013.

Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions requesting discovery meet and confer, and joint statement regarding discovery disagreement. (Mot.'s re Disc., ECF Nos. 31, 32.)

Plaintiff's motions are denied.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se as a state prisoner challenging his conditions of confinement. In such cases, the parties are relieved of the need to meet and confer and provide a joint statement regarding discovery disagreements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 14, Discovery and Scheduling Order, ¶ 5.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motions requesting discovery meet and confer (ECF No. 31) and joint statement regarding discovery disagreement (ECF No. 32), are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121226

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.