Hamilton v. Wasco State Prison, et al.
Filing
65
ORDER denying 64 Motion for discovery for case resolution signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/4/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALBERT J. HAMILTON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
CLENDEHEN,
15
16
17
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY FOR CASE RESOLUTION
[ECF No. 64]
Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of
19
the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302. Defendant has not consented
20
or declined to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
21
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled “discovery for case resolution,” filed
22
January 3, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an “order for discovery for case resolution that
23
Plaintiff was a victim of a crime” and that Defendant Clendehen is liable under the United States
24
Constitution. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
25
Plaintiff is advised that he bears the burden of proof in proving the allegations in this case, and
26
Defendant must be provided the opportunity to defend against the allegations by way of filing a
27
dispositive motion, if so desired. In this case, on May 19, 2016, Defendant filed a pre-answer motion
28
to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the allegations failed to give rise to a cognizable claim for
1
1
relief. On November 7, 2016, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending
2
that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. If the Findings and Recommendations are adopted in
3
full by the district judge, then Defendant will be directed to file a further response to the complaint. If
4
and when an answer is filed to the complaint, the Court will issue a discovery and scheduling order
5
opening discovery and setting for the deadlines for filing further dispositive motions. Accordingly,
6
Plaintiff’s motion for resolution of the instant case is DENIED.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
January 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?