Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06717/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06717-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LADELL STEPHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASTRO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6717 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY (Doc. 13.) 

Ladell Stephens (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court has reviewed

the record and notes that Plaintiff filed the action on December 16, 2004. On February 24, 2005,

the Court issued an Informational Order informing Plaintiff of various requirements and

procedures that will occur during the course of the instant proceedings. In that Order, Plaintiff

was informed that the Court must first conduct a preliminary screening of the case to determine

whether the complaint states any cognizable claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Only

Case 1:04-cv-06717-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 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

after the Court has made a preliminary determination that the case can proceed, will the Court

direct the Complaint to be served on any defendants. In addition, the Order informed Plaintiff

that only after Defendants have made an appearance in the action will an Order opening

discovery issue. 

In this case, the Court has yet to conduct its preliminary screening and thus, no service

has occurred, no appearance has been made by defendants and no answer or other responsive

pleading has been filed. As such, Plaintiff’s request to open discovery is not only premature, it is

unnecessary. The Court understands Plaintiff’s desire to proceed with the case. However, until

the Court has determined that the complaint states cognizable claims for relief under Section

1983, no discovery will take place. In addition, Plaintiff is forewarned that this Court has

pending before it literally hundreds of cases similar to Plaintiff’s and thus, the screening process

often takes time. Plaintiff can rest assured that the Court will screen his complaint as quickly as

possible, however, that may not be as speedily as Plaintiff would like. Nevertheless, Plaintiff

should remain patient and should keep the Court apprised of any change of address that he might

have to ensure that he receives copies of all Orders issued in his case. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06717-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2