Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947-17/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 JOSEPH MADRID,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and M. LOPEZ,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 

FOR A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN 

INVESTIGATOR

(ECF NO. 73)

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

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in 

Los Angeles County Jail.

Plaintiff asked the Court to set a scheduling conference on March 23, 2020. (ECF No. 

67). The Court denied this request, explaining that the case is stayed except as to the issue of 

exhaustion, and that there is no need for a scheduling conference at this time. (ECF No. 68). On 

May 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed another request for the Court to set a scheduling conference. (ECF 

No. 73). Plaintiff does not address the Court’s prior order, or explain why the Court should set a 

scheduling conference despite the exhaustion issue. Accordingly, the Court will once again deny 

Plaintiff’s request for the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior order. 

As to Plaintiff’s request for appointment of an investigator, which Plaintiff included with 

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 75 Filed 05/14/20 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

his request for the Court to set a scheduling conference, it will also be denied. Plaintiff does not 

cite to any law requiring the Court to appoint an investigator, and the Court is aware of none. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion provides no explanation as to why the Court should appoint an 

investigator in this action. The Court notes that it recently denied Plaintiff’s sixth request for 

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 74).

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the Court to set a scheduling conference is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of an investigator is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 75 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 2