Aicher v. New Mexico Department of Corrections, et al

Filing 29

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar DENYING 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed with Discovery; DENYING 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Scheduling Conference; and GRANTING 26 Defendant GEO Group's Motion for Protective Order. No party is required to participate in discovery unless and until the Court so orders. (am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ERIC AICHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 18-cv-0474 RB/SMV

NEW MEXICO DEP’T OF CORRS.,
THE GEO GROUP, INC., and
CORIZON HEALTH CARE
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT GEO GROUP’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions for discovery and Defendant
GEO Group’s motion for protective order. [Docs. 24, 25, 26]. No further briefing is needed.
No party will be required to engage in discovery absent further order of the Court.
Plaintiff, an incarcerated person proceeding pro se, filed his civil rights complaint in state
court on April 18, 2018. [Doc. 1-1] at 1–30. The case was removed by Defendant Corizon on
May 22, 2018. [Doc. 1]. The complaint is subject to screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
(requiring review as soon as practicable to identify any cognizable claim and to dismiss any
portion of the complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, and/or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune). Moreover, the local rules of this district exempt this case
from discovery (except by agreement of the parties or order of the Court).

See

D.N.M.LR-Civ. 16.3.
If any claim remains after the initial screening, the Court will determine at that time
whether to allow Plaintiff “to engage in the formal discovery process or to rely on the production

of a Martinez report in order to help develop [his] claims.” Wishneski v. Andrade, 2012 WL
12903280, at *2 (D.N.M. Sept. 12, 2012) (emphasis added); see also Foti v. Bernalillo Cty., 2015
WL 712915, at *2 (D.N.M. Feb. 6, 2015) (unpublished) (denying prisoner’s motion for the
production of discovery and noting that “the Court will order discovery as appropriate”). If the
parties wish to voluntarily engage in discovery, they are free to do so. However, until further
order of the Court, no discovery may be compelled.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed with Discovery
[Doc. 24] be DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Scheduling Conference
[Doc. 25] be DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant GEO Group’s Motion for Protective Order
[Doc. 26] be GRANTED. Defendant GEO Group is not required to disclose the information and
materials requested in Plaintiff’s First Request for Production [Doc. 19], unless otherwise ordered
by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no discovery in this case be compelled absent further order
of the Court. No party is required to participate in discovery unless and until the Court so orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

2