Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02343/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02343-0/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-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUILLIE L. HARVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. AYALA, et al.,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

1:10-cv-02343-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AN

ORDER

(ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff Quillie L. Harvey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the Magistrate Judge

handling all matters in this action. ( ECF No. 4.) 

Plaintiff initiated this action on December 16, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s

Complaint has not yet been screened. Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Request for an Order

on May 27, 2011. (Mot., ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff requests that the Court order Wasco State

Prison to place a videotape in Plaintiff’s legal property. (Id.) The videotape is a recordingof

Plaintiff alleging prison staff used excessive force and falsified reports. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s Motion is, in effect, a discovery request. It is premature. It should be

directed to Defendants after the Court has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 09/14/11 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-

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). The Court must screen Plaintiff’s Complaint and determine if Plaintiff has a

cognizable claim. If there is a cognizable claim, the Court will order service of Plaintiff’s

Complaint. Once the Complaint has been served and Defendants file an answer, the Court

will issue a discovery and scheduling order which will provide the parties with time in which

to conduct discovery. Plaintiff’s Motion is premature at this time.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Request for an Order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2011 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02343-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 2