Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00136-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM WYATT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00136 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY TIMETABLE

[ECF No. 21]

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 31, 2014.1 

On February 23, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 4, 

2015. On January 26, 2016, the Court screened the First Amended Complaint. It was also dismissed 

with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second 

Amended Complaint, which is currently pending screening by the Court.

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery time table. Plaintiff was advised as 

follows:

the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against 

a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). In this case, the Court has not yet screened the Second Amended 

Complaint, and service on Defendant has not yet been authorized. Once the Second 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on February 7, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 22 Filed 07/06/16 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

2

Amended Complaint is screened, the Court authorizes service on Defendants, and 

Defendants answer the complaint, a discovery and scheduling order will issue 

opening discovery for all parties. 

[ECF No. 20.] Plaintiff’s motion for discovery was dismissed on May 25, 2016.

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff renewed his motion for discovery time table. For the same reasons 

stated in the Court’s May 25, 2016, order, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery time table is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 22 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 2