UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 21, 2013
MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,
J. MOON, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO INCREMENT INTERROGATORIES PURSUANT TO RULE 26(b)(2) (ECF No. 16.)
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 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.)
On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to increment interrogatories. Plaintiff seeks leave to propound forty (40) interrogatories, with subparts, upon each of the named defendants in this action. (ECF No. 16.) Defendants filed an opposition, noting that the Court has not screened Plaintiff's complaint and that discovery has not be opened in this action. (ECF No. 17.)
Defendants correctly note that Plaintiff's request for incremental discovery is premature. 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). 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 motion to increment discovery is premature and is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.