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.

Matthew James Griffin v. J. Moon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 11, 2013

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. MOON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT APPOINTED MEDICAL WITNESS (ECF No. 9) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS AND SET THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH DEPOSITIONS ARE CONDUCTED AT THE PRISON / (ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin ("Griffin") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff originally filed his complaint on October 19, 2012, in the Kings County Superior Court. (ECF No. 2-1.) Defendants J. Wang, C. McCabe and J. Moon removed the action to this court on December 14, 2012. (ECF No. 2.)

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff lodged his proposed supplemental complaint on February 25, 2013. (ECF No. 12.) Shortly thereafter, on February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court-appointed expert medical witness, along with a motion to take depositions and set the conditions upon which depositions are conducted at the prison. (ECF Nos. 9 and 11.)

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). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

On March 8, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint and the Clerk of Court filed Plaintiff's amended complaint into the record. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) The Court has not screened Plaintiff's amended complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal or whether the action should proceed to discovery on Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions for a court-appointed expert and for depositions at the prison are premature and are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130311

© 1992-2013 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.