Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02415/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02415-8/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH B. MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2415 GEB GGH P

vs.

LAHEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Pursuant to

motion filed January 4, 2010, plaintiff asks the court to serve upon defendant Traquina plaintiff’s

Request for Production of Documents, as well as the summons and complaint. See Docket No.

26. However, as plaintiff concedes, no defendant has yet been served process in this case, id. at 1

(fn.), for which the U.S. Marshal is presently tasked, Docket No. 21; moreover, the responsibility

for serving discovery requests lies with the parties, not the court. 

Review of the docket demonstrates the following. On October 13, 2009, this

court directed the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff the appropriate documents to complete in order

to effect service of process upon defendants Traquina, Lahey, Basi and Tan. Docket No. 8. 

Although plaintiff initially notified the court that the material he received from the Clerk of Court

was incomplete, Docket No. 10, on November 2, 2009, he sought a 30-day extension of time

Case 2:09-cv-02415-GEB-KJN Document 28 Filed 01/19/10 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

2

within which to complete and submit all necessary documents, Docket No. 13. Despite granting

plaintiff’s request, Docket No. 16, the court directed the Attorney General to make a special

appearance in response to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, Docket No. 9, and the

submission of service documents was suspended pending the court’s decision on that motion,

Docket No. 17. Plaintiff submitted the requisite documents on November 30, 2009, Docket No.

18, and, on December 8, 2009, the court directed the U.S. Marshal to serve process upon

defendants, Docket No. 21.

After the U.S. Marshal notifies the court and plaintiff that defendants have been

served process and/or defendants appear in this action, plaintiff (not the court) may serve his

discovery requests upon defendants. Discovery is self-executing. Court permission is not

required, nor is court participation appropriate, for propounding, responding to, or serving

discovery requests. Neither discovery requests nor responses should be filed with the court

unless they are at issue and a party seeks relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s “motion” filed January 11, 2010, Docket No. 26, is both

premature and inappropriate, and shall be disregarded.

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 19, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02415-GEB-KJN Document 28 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2