Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00530/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00530-1/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

DAVID LESLIE MANNING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. STAINER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00530 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUBPOENA

[ECF No. 8]

Plaintiff David Leslie Manning, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 6, 2015. The matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On May 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the issuance of a federal civil subpoena. 

seeking to open discovery. Plaintiff is advised that 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 dismiss a complaint or portion thereof 

if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines 

that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:15-cv-00530-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 05/14/15 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

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In this case, the Court has not yet screened the complaint, and service on 

Defendant has not yet been authorized. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to commence discovery is

premature.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a subpoena

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00530-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 2