Cranford v. Medina

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 14 Plaintiff's Request to Open Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/23/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

1:13-cv-00210-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S
REQUEST TO OPEN DISCOVERY
(Doc. 14.)

vs.

14

RENEE MEDINA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Archie Cranford ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

20

February 8, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge

21

jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an

22

appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the

23

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case

24

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

25

On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9.) On March 8,

26

2013, the court issued an order striking the First Amended Complaint for lack of Plaintiff’s

27

signature, with leave to amend. (Doc. 11.) On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Second

28

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) The court screened the Second Amended Complaint pursuant
1

1

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on May 16, 2014, dismissing the Second Amended

2

Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within thirty days. (Doc. 13.)

3

On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Time Table, in which he requests the

4

court to open discovery in this case. (Doc. 14.)

5

II.

DISCOVERY

6

Plaintiff argues that discovery should be opened in this case because it has been more

7

than a year since he filed the case; one defendant has passed away; and several other defendants

8

have fabricated charges against him in an attempt to cause him to dismiss this case.

9

Plaintiff is advised that the court will issue a scheduling order setting a schedule for

10

discovery after the complaint has been served and one of the defendants has filed an Answer to

11

the complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint has

12

been dismissed, with leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty days. Service of

13

process shall not be initiated until the court completes the screening process and finds that

14

Plaintiff states cognizable claims. Therefore, it is not time for discovery in this action, and

15

Plaintiff’s request to open discovery at this stage of the proceedings shall be denied.

16

III.

17
18

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to open

discovery, filed on May 22, 2014, is DENIED.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 23, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2