Dragusica v. Robles et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production Of His Medical Records (ECF No. 7 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/17/2011. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT FRANCIS DRAGUSICA, 10 11 CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00363-LJO-SMS PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF HIS MEDICAL RECORDS v. 12 ROLANDO DIA ROBLES, et al., 13 (ECF No. 7) Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Robert Francis Dragusica (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 17 in this action on March 3, 2011, alleging that he is being denied medical care for his serious medical 18 condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed 19 a motion for a court order granting him access to his medical records. (ECF No. 7.) As Plaintiff was 20 notified via the First Informational Order, an order opening discovery is issued once an answer is 21 filed. (ECF No. 3.) The complaint in this action is still pending screening and Plaintiff’s motion for 22 discovery is premature. 23 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that discovery is self executing and the opposing party is 24 to have an opportunity to respond to discovery requests prior to requesting intervention of the Court. 25 The Court will only become involved where there is a discovery dispute. Where a party has failed 26 to answer a question, answer an interrogatory, or permit inspection of a document the requesting 27 party may move for an order to compel an answer, production, or inspection. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 28 37(a)(3)(B). Although the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro per, he is required to 1 1 comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Once the complaint is 2 screened and Defendants have filed an answer a discovery and scheduling order will be issued 3 opening discovery in this action. Plaintiff’s motion, filed March 17, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED, 4 as premature. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: cm411 June 17, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?