Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06658-13/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

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

RONALD ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

VASQUEZ, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-6658 AWI DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

(DOC 87)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action involves allegations that defendants denied

plaintiff’s access to the courts through restrictive law library rules. Pending before the Court is

plaintiff’s motion for discovery. 

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

of the court’s First Informational Order, filed March 1, 2005. In that order, plaintiff was specifically

informed that he may not conduct discovery until defendants file an answer and the court issues the

discovery order. Defendants filed n answer on March 19, 2007. 

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

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 88 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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

admissions, 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, 36-

250. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for discovery is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06658-LJO-DLB Document 88 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2