(PC) Cone v. Gamble III, et al.

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING #14 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery as Premature, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/29/2024. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRIS MONROE CONE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
GAMBLE III, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:24-cv-00799-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY AS PREMATURE
(ECF No. 14)

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Chris Monroe Cone (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a first

19

amended complaint on August 19, 2024, which is pending screening before the Court. (ECF No.

20

13.)

21

On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court. (ECF No. 14.) Upon review of

22

the documents, it appears Plaintiff is requesting production of videos from Valley State Prison to

23

use as evidence in this action. Plaintiff also includes a letter addressed to Kamala Harris, seeking

24

assistance with early parole or a pardon. (Id.) The Court construes the filing as a motion for

25

discovery.

26

Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is premature and shall be denied without prejudice. As

27

noted above, the Court has not screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint to determine whether

28

it is subject to dismissal or whether the action should proceed to discovery on Plaintiff’s claims.
1

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may

2

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the

3

action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”) The first amended

4

complaint has not been ordered served, no defendants have appeared, and discovery has not been

5

opened.

6

To the extent Plaintiff seeks early parole or a pardon, a civil rights action is not the proper

7

method for such relief. It has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact

8

or duration of their confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas

9

corpus relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Furthermore, the pendency of this

10

action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in general. Summers v. Earth

11

Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491–93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir.

12

2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal

13

claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491−93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d

14

at 969. As the Court has not yet found service of the first amended complaint appropriate on any

15

defendants, there are no other parties to this action over which the Court has jurisdiction.

16
17

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, (ECF No. 14), is HEREBY DENIED,
without prejudice, as premature.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 29, 2024

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2