(PC) Mills v. Jones et al

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING 64 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 06/05/2024. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS K. MILLS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
ZACHERY JONES, et al.

15

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 64)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

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, filed June 4, 2024. (ECF No.
64). The Court deems the motion submitted because an opposition not necessary.
Here, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on March 11, 2024. (ECF No. 44.)

22

After Defendants opted out of the post-screening ADR settlement conference, the discovery and

23

scheduling order was issued on April 10, 2024. (ECF Nos. 49, 51.)

24

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff submits that he served discovery requests on

25

Defendants’ counsel on April 2, 2024, and he has not received a response. (ECF No. 64 at 3.)

26

Based on Plaintiff’s submission, his discovery requests were served prior to the Court’s issuance

27

of the scheduling order opening discovery. As stated in the Court’s first informational order

28

issued on August 14, 2023, “[n]o discovery may be initiated until the Court issues a discovery
1

1

order or otherwise orders that discovery begin.” (ECF No. 2 at 4.) Accordingly, Defendants

2

were not obligated to respond to Plaintiff’s premature discovery requests, and the motion to

3

compel is denied, without prejudice.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2024

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