Denton v. Pulido et al

Filing 11

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion 3 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/19/13: Motion is DENIED without prejudice as premature; This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER PULIDO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
BRYAN DENTON,
9
10
11
12

1:13-CV-0017 AWI BAM
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION
(Doc. No. 3)

13
14
15

Plaintiff Bryan Denton (“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. On January 4, 2013,

18

Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Notice of Motion To Request A Exseption [sic] From The

19

11th Amendment: For Off Pulido To Be Placed Under Individual Capacity Status.” See Doc.

20

No. 3.

21

A review of Plaintiff’s motion shows that Plaintiff is requesting discovery and clarifying

22

that he is bringing suit against Defendant Pulido in Pulido’s individual capacity. See id. Plaintiff

23

has been granted in forma pauperis status, but his complaint has yet to be screened. Because

24

Plaintiff’s complaint has yet to be screened, there has been no determination concerning the

25

validity of any claims alleged against Defendant Pulido. Further, until the complaint has been

26

screened, Plaintiff’s request for discovery is premature.

27
28

In order to resolve Plaintiff’s motion, the Court will deny any requests for discovery as
premature. This denial will be without prejudice to refiling a motion for discovery if it is

1

determined that Plaintiff has stated viable claims in his complaint. Further, the Court will refer

2

Plaintiff’s complaint to the Magistrate Judge for screening with the understanding/clarification

3

that Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendant Pulido in Pulido’s individual capacity.

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s request for discovery is DENIED without prejudice as premature;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint shall be construed as alleging claims against Defendant Pulido in

8
9
10

Pulido’s individual capacity; and
3.

This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:
0m8i78

September 19, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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