Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the identify of two John Does, filed 

July 1, 2022. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 

This action is proceeding against Defendants B. Gonzales, G. Morales, K. Gonzales, and 

Anderson for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The current motion is directed to 

the “Office Of The Attorney General” and requests disclosure of the identity of John Does “who 

illegal beat Stone of 11th May, 2020, while Stone was handcuffed.” (ECF No. 36.) 

The discovery phase of this litigation is not yet open. Plaintiff is directed to paragraph seven 

of the Court’s first information order, filed September 30, 2021. In that order, Plaintiff was 

ADAM JAY STONE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFIEFFER,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:21-cv-01461-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING IDENTIFY OF TWO JOHN DOES

(ECF No. 36)

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 38 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

specifically informed that he may not conduct discovery until Defendants file an answer and the Court 

issues the discovery order. (ECF No. 3.) Accordingly, Defendants are under no obligation to respond 

to Plaintiff’s discovery requests at this juncture. 

In addition, once discovery is open, court permission is not necessary for discovery requests. 

Discovery is self-executing until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks 

relief from the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Interrogatories, requests for 

admission, requests for production of documents, and responses thereto shall not be filed with the 

court until there is a proceeding in which the document or proof of service is at issue. Such documents 

are to be served on the opposing party, and not with the Court. Local Rule 33-250. Discovery 

requests improperly filed with the Court shall be stricken from the record. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion filed on July 1, 2022, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 38 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 2