Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-01067-JAM-JDP (PC)

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND (2) DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

ECF Nos. 34, 35

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a sixty-day extension of time to file a response to defendant 

Lynch’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 34. He claims the 

requested extension is needed to allow him to gather discovery. Id. at 1. Plaintiff has also filed a 

separate motion requesting discovery related to Lynch’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 35. 

As a threshold matter, plaintiff does not need to conduct discovery in order to prepare a 

response to defendant Lynch’s motion to dismiss, which is brought under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). A motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint’s 

allegations, when accepted as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In 

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally will not consider 

extraneous facts or evidence. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (“Ordinarily, a court may look only at the face of the complaint to decide a motion to 

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 39 Filed 02/09/21 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

dismiss.”).

Second, plaintiff’s motion requesting discovery, ECF No. 35, is improper. Generally, 

discovery requests should not be filed with the court.1 Instead, a party seeking discovery is 

required to serve his discovery requests on each defendant from whom he seeks discovery. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for discovery, ECF No. 35, will be denied. However, in 

light of plaintiff’s pro se status, his request for an extension of time, ECF No. 34, will be granted 

in part to allow him an opportunity to respond to defendant Lynch’s motion.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 34, is granted in part;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition to defendant Lynch’s motion to dismiss; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery, ECF No. 35, is denied.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2021 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

 Under the court’s local rules, discovery requests may be filed with the court only when 

the requests are at issue. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 250.2-250.4.

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 39 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 2