Clark v. Guerrero

Filing 101

ORDER Denying 95 Motion for a Trial Date, Denying 100 Motion for Discovery, and Referring Matter to Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen for screening of the 88 amended complaint. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/2/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 MICHAEL CLARK, 8 9 10 2:09-CV-141 JCM (PAL) Plaintiff, v. OFFICER GUERRERO, 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 15 ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael E. Clark’s motion to set this matter for trial. (Doc. #95). The attorney general has filed an opposition. (Doc. #99). 16 This court has previously intimated its view that this matter was not yet ready for trial, as the 17 docket did not reflect that any discovery had taken place. Recent filings by the parties have 18 confirmed this inclination. The attorney general’s opposition to the motion requesting a trial date 19 represents that very little discovery has taken place. Furthermore, Mr. Clark has filed a motion 20 seeking to compel discovery, stating that he has been wholly unable to receive any discovery from 21 the attorney general. (Doc. #100). 22 As the parties apparently agree that discovery is not complete (indeed, it has yet to begin), 23 this court finds that the case is not ripe for trial. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for 24 a trial date. 25 Likewise, because discovery has not yet begun in this case, Mr. Clark’s motion to compel 26 is denied as premature. The procedurally tortured path of this litigation has resulted in a three-year 27 old case that has yet to complete the pleading stage. The initial error, which was compounded later, 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 was the attorney general’s seeking an extension of time to file a responsive pleading and later filing 2 a responsive pleading. See docs. #3 and #8. By doing so, the attorney general rendered any 3 screening order by the court superfluous, and thus no screening order was entered. 4 As discovery has not yet commenced, there is no discovery plan or scheduling order 5 governing the parties’ discovery obligations. Accordingly, the motion to compel discovery is 6 premature. The court will refer this matter for screening to determine whether a responsive order 7 is required, and only then will discovery commence. 8 Therefore, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for a 10 11 12 13 14 15 trial date (doc. #95) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for discovery (doc. #100) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be referred to Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen for screening of the amended complaint (doc. #88). DATED May 2, 2012. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -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?