UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 15, 2013
LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,
DANIEL GONZALEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF DISCOVERY SCHEDULE (Doc. 46.)
Leonard Ransom, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the initial Complaint, against defendants C/O M. Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O Ralph Nunez for use of excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, Sgt. J. Ybarra, and Lt. Carlos Sandoval for failure to protect Plaintiff.*fn1
On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting clarification of the Court's discovery order for this action. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendants have refused to respond to his Request for Admissions, and he questions whether discovery is stayed, or will be stayed, pending the resolution of Defendants' pending motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.
Plaintiff is advised that the Court has not issued a discovery order in this action. The Court will issue a scheduling order setting a schedule for discovery after Defendants have filed an Answer to the complaint. Defendants have not yet filed an Answer. Therefore, the discovery phase has not been opened in this case. The parties are precluded from participating in discovery at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, Defendants have properly refused to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests.
This order resolves Plaintiff's motion for clarification filed on May 13, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.