Walker v. King et al

Filing 83

ORDER on Plaintiff's 82 Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 03/27/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ROGER WALKER,

10

Case No. 1:16-cv-01665-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,

11

v.
(ECF NO. 82)

12

TIM POOLE, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
Roger Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

15
16

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery. (ECF No. 82). Plaintiff

17
18

requests discovery from “Defendants and their emplyers [sic]). (Id. at 1). As discovery requests

19

should be served on defense counsel and not filed as a motion, Plaintiff's motion for discovery

20

will be denied.1 However, defense counsel will be directed to treat the motion as discovery

21

requests that were served as of the date of this order.

22

In the future, Plaintiff should mail his discovery requests to defense counsel, rather than

23

filing them with the Court. If Plaintiff wishes to challenge Defendants’ response to a discovery

24

request, after Plaintiff has sent the requests to Defendants and received their response, Plaintiff

25

may then file a motion to compel with this Court.

26

\\\

27
28

1

If Plaintiff is seeking documents that are only available from a non-party, Plaintiff should file a motion for
a subpoena duces tecum.

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is DENIED, and that

2

defense counsel shall treat the motion as discovery requests that were served as of the date of this

3

order.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2