Samuels v. Adame et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 42 Motion For Inspection, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/29/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

ROBERT EARL SAMUELS,

9
10

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1320-AWI-DLBPC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INSPECTION

v.
(DOC. 42)

11
12

G. ADAME, et al.,
Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Robert Earl Samuels (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendants G. Adame, C Farnsworth, P Gentry, B Medrano, R. Nicholas, F. Rivera, E

19

Sailer, D Snyder. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to inspect pursuant to Rule 34(a)

20

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed October 13, 2011. Doc. 42.

21

Plaintiff requests that either the Court provide an independent representative, or a

22

protective order be issued so that photographs of Building 3 at California Correctional Institution

23

Facility A can be obtained. Pl.’s Mot. 1.

24

Plaintiff is requesting that the Court intervene in the discovery process. The Court is not

25

typically involved in discovery until a motion to compel is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Plaintiff

26

has not demonstrated whether he attempted to request inspection from Defendants or some third

27

party prior to seeking the Court’s assistance, as required by Rule 37(a)(3).

28

The Court cannot expend government funds on Plaintiff’s behalf without congressional
1

1

authorization, even if Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d

2

210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citing United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321

3

(1976)). The Court will not provide an independent representative to assist Plaintiff in obtaining

4

this discovery as no such congressional authorization exists.

5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for inspection, filed

6

October 13, 2011, is denied.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated:
3b142a

November 29, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2