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.

Adrian Moon v. C. Reece

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 30, 2013

ADRIAN MOON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
C. REECE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS REGARDING DISCOVERY (ECF No. 16, 20, 24, 28, 29)

Plaintiff Adrian Moon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 30, 2012. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.)

The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF Nos. 1, 17.) Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint.

Even though the Court has not yet identified a cognizable claim in, or ordered service of, Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff has filed numerous discovery motions in this matter. Specifically, he has filed:

1. An October 11, 2012, motion to be allowed to conduct discovery to determine if his action could be converted to a class action (ECF No. 16);

2. A January 7, 2013, motion to be allowed discovery because he had insufficient information to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 20);

3. A January 22, 2013, motion to issue requests for admissions to various defendants (ECF No. 24);

4. A February 4, 2013, motion to deem matters admitted because Defendant Truett failed to respond to requests for admission within the allotted time for (ECF No. 28); and

5. A February 4, 2013, motion to deem matters admitted by, and impose sanctions on, Defendants Hoffman, Reece, and Esparza for failing to respond to requests for admission within the allotted time (ECF No. 29).

Plaintiff's motions are denied. Plaintiff is not authorized to initiate discovery or to file motions to compel discovery responses. See, paragraph 8 of the Court's First Informational Order, filed on July 31, 2012.

Plaintiff is directed not to initiate any more discovery or discovery motions unless and until this Court determines he has asserted a cognizable claim and it authorizes discovery.

Once discovery is open, Plaintiff may serve requests for admissions on defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. If defendants then fail to respond, Plaintiff need not file any motions to force Defendants' admissions. Because Rule 36 is self-executing, motions to compel admissions are unnecessary.

As set forth above, Plaintiff's motions for discovery are premature and HEREBY DENIED on that ground.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130430

© 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.