Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00645/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00645-12/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

BARRY L. BROOKINS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

RAJENDRA DWIVEDI,

 Defendant.

1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE

(ECF No. 59.)

Barry L. Brookins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 

May 10, 2018, against sole defendant Dr. Rajendra Dwivedi (“Defendant”) for failing to provide 

adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 

On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents and for 

sanctions. (ECF No. 59.)

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied as premature. Discovery in this case has not yet been 

opened.

1

 When this case is ready for discovery to proceed the court will issue a scheduling order 

opening discovery. Discovery will not be opened until after Defendant has filed an answer to the 

 

1 On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he had served discovery requests on 

Defendant. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff is not permitted to participate in discovery until after discovery has been opened 

by the court. Defendant is not required to respond to Plaintiff’s premature discovery requests. When discovery is 

opened, Plaintiff may re-serve his discovery requests on Defendant. 

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 60 Filed 05/26/20 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

complaint.2 Therefore, it is not time for discovery in this case, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

shall be denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 

filed on May 21, 2020, is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 Defendant Dwivedi filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2020. (ECF No. 46.) Under Rule 

12(a)(4), the filing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss extends the time for Defendant to file an answer until after the 

motion to dismiss has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4); See Hernandez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 1:17-cv00211-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 10323280 (E.D. Cal. November 2, 2018).

Case 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA Document 60 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 2