Hamilton v. Lara et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 30 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/27/2011. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EUGENE HAMILTON, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 1:08-cv-01967-OWW-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY (Doc. 30.) v. LARA, et al., 12 Defendants. / 13 14 Eugene Hamilton (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 15 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 29, 16 2008. (Doc. 1.) On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery. (Doc. 30.) 17 On May 23, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition. (Doc. 31.) 18 Discovery has not yet commenced in this action. The Court will establish a discovery 19 schedule at a later stage of the proceedings by issuing a scheduling order which shall be served upon 20 all parties to this action.1 Until then, the parties may not conduct discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 21 request for leave to conduct discovery is premature and shall be denied as such. 22 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct discovery is DENIED as premature. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 6i0kij May 27, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 As a rule, the discovery phase for an action such as Plaintiff’s will be commenced by the Court after an Answer to the Complaint is filed. In this action, Defendants responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss, which is pending, and no Answer has been filed.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?