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)

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-