Trujillo v. Munoz

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 14 Motion to Proceed with Discovery and Schedule Trial, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/18/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

1:14-cv-01215-GSA-PC

GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED WITH DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULE TRIAL
(Doc. 14.)

C/O MUNOZ,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

19

commencing this action on August 4, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff consented

20

to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 5.) On January 14,

21

2015, the court issued an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave

22

to amend. (Doc. 10.) On January 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which

23

awaits the court’s requisite screening. (Doc. 11.)

24

On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to proceed with discovery and schedule the

25

trial for this action. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff discusses his efforts to obtain records from the prison,

26

and requests a form for issuance of a subpoena.

27

Plaintiff is advised that the court will issue a scheduling order opening discovery after

28

the complaint has been served and the defendant has filed an Answer to the complaint. At this
1

1

stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint awaits the court’s requisite

2

screening process. Service of process shall not be initiated until the court has screened the

3

complaint and finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims.

4

discovery in this action, and Plaintiff’s request to proceed with discovery at this stage of the

5

proceedings shall be denied.

Therefore, it is not time for

6

Ordinarily, a trial is not scheduled in a case until after discovery has been completed

7

and any pretrial dispositive motions have been resolved. Thus, it is premature to schedule a

8

trial date for this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a trial date shall be denied.

9

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

10

commence discovery and schedule a trial date for this action, filed on March 16, 2015, is

11

DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 18, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2