Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04098/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04098-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS VAUGHN JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. BINKELE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04098-EMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SCHEDULING ORDER

Docket No. 40

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a scheduling order so that he may conduct discovery. The 

motion is DENIED as unnecessary. Docket No. 40. As a pro se prisoner case, this case is exempt 

from the initial disclosure and initial case management conference requirements of the local rules 

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv); N. D. Cal. Local 

Rule 16-2 and 16-7. The order of service, with its scheduling provisions, functions as the case 

management order. See N. D. Cal. Local Rule 16-7. That order of service authorizes the parties to 

engage in discovery. Docket No. 13 at 10 (“Discovery may be taken in accordance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required before the parties may conduct discovery.”) Plaintiff and 

defendants have been free to engage in discovery since the order of service was issued more than 

seven months ago. Plaintiff is reminded that discovery requests and responses should not be filed 

with the court and instead are exchanged between the parties. Additionally, if any discovery 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-04098-EMC Document 42 Filed 08/09/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

dispute arises, the parties must meet and confer before presenting any discovery disputes to the 

court; in a pro se prisoner case, the requirement may be satisfied by meeting and conferring via 

letters or telephone calls, rather than meeting and conferring in person. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04098-EMC Document 42 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 2