Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING 26 Motion to Expedite Case and Allow Early Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/15/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CHARLES A. MILLER,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXPEDITE CASE AND ALLOW EARLY
DISCOVERY
(Doc. 26.)

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

I.

BACKGROUND

14

Charles A. Miller (Aplaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

15

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by

16

plaintiff in the Fresno County Superior Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CECG02100). On

17

March 8, 2012, defendants Adonis, Griffith, Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez

18

(ARemoving Defendants@) removed the case to federal court and requested the court to screen

19

the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

20

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Ahmed, Anderson, Chudy,

21

Duenas, Eddings, Pascual, and Walker (AConsenting Defendants@) joined in the Notice of

22

Removal of Action.

23

Defendants’ request for court screening, and the complaint now awaits screening. (Doc. 16.)

24

(Docs. 1, 2.)

On March 8, 2012, defendants

(Doc. 4.) On October 4, 2012, the court granted the Removing

On July 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for the court to expedite the screening of the

25

complaint, or in the alternative, to allow Plaintiff to conduct early discovery. (Doc. 26.)

26

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

27

Plaintiff argues that his case should be expedited because the complaint was filed more

28

than three years ago in state court and removed to federal court more than fifteen months ago,
1

1

and the parties were already conducting discovery in the state court case when the case was

2

removed to federal court. Plaintiff argues that the delay in this case was caused by Defendants,

3

who have removed this case to federal court twice, causing an unreasonable risk that some of

4

the witnesses yet to be served may become unavailable for service, and important witnesses

5

may be lost.

6

The court has granted Defendants’ request to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C.

7

' 1915A(a). The court ordinarily screens complaints in the order in which they are filed at the

8

court, and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner

9

civil rights cases presently pending before the court, and delays are inevitable despite the

10

court=s best efforts. Plaintiff's complaint was removed to federal court on March 8, 2012 and

11

will be screened in due time. The court acknowledges plaintiff’s concerns; however, the court

12

presently has many other cases before it which also require immediate attention.

13

With respect to service, the court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to

14

serve the complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it

15

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants.

16

With respect to discovery, the court will issue a scheduling order setting a schedule for

17

discovery after defendants have filed an Answer to the complaint. Plaintiff has not shown good

18

cause for the court to allow him to conduct discovery before the court has screened the

19

complaint or issued a scheduling order.

20

III.

21
22

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for the court to

expedite this case, or in the alternative, to allow him to conduct early discovery is DENIED.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

27
28

July 15, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

2

1

6i0kij8d

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3