(PC) Mills v. Jones et al
ORDER DENYING 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery as Premature, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/14/2023. (Maldonado, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THOMAS K. MILLS,
ZACHERY JONES, et al.
No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AS
(ECF No. 17)
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, filed
November 13, 2023. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied as premature.
As stated in the Court’s first informational order, “[a]fter defendants’ answers are filed,
the Court will issue an order opening discovery and setting deadlines for completing discovery,
amending the pleadings, and filing dispositive motions. No discovery may be initiated until the
Court issues a discovery order or otherwise orders that discovery begin.” (ECF No. 2 at 4.)
Defendants have not yet filed an answer and the Court has not yet ordered that discovery begin.
Even when Defendants answer and a discovery and scheduling order is issued, any discovery
requests must be served directly on the Defendants from whom discovery is sought, and unless a
dispute arises, discovery requests should not be filed with the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff is advised to
the review the Court’s first informational order issued on August 14, 2023. (ECF No. 2.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is denied as premature and improperly filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 14, 2023
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?