Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01916-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NELLY KANDKHOROVA,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01916-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTION

(Doc. 20)

Plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 3, 2014. This 

action is proceeding against Defendant Nelly Kandkhorova, M.D. (“Defendant”), on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment claim arising out of the medical treatment provided to Plaintiff for his chronic 

pain. 

On December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking specific discovery from the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and from California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility and State Prison. Defendant has not yet been served with the summons and 

complaint or returned a waiver of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), (e). Moreover, once Defendant is 

served or waives service and makes an appearance in the action, the discovery phase will not be 

open until an answer is filed and the Court issues a scheduling order opening discovery. Finally, 

once discovery is open, discovery requests must be served directly on Defendant through counsel; 

Case 1:14-cv-01916-DAD-DLB Document 21 Filed 12/28/15 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

discovery requests are not to be filed with the Court.1 Plaintiff is directed to review the first

informational order, filed on December 6, 2014. (Doc. 2, Order, § V.) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff is notified that a Pitchess motion, which he referenced in the caption of his motion, is a state discovery 

procedure and is misplaced in this federal civil rights action. Riverside Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t v. Stiglitz, 60 Cal.4th 

624, 630, 339 P.3d 295, 299 (Cal. 2014) (under California law, a Pitchess motion allows the applicant to seek certain 

law enforcement personnel records upon a showing of good cause) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff is 

required to seek discovery in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 34 governs requests for 

the production of documents. If Defendant serves an objection to a properly served request for the production of 

documents and Plaintiff believes the documents are discoverable, his recourse is to file a motion to compel. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 37(a). Plaintiff may not file a request for documents directly with the Court. At this juncture, 

however, any attempt to engage discovery is premature.

Case 1:14-cv-01916-DAD-DLB Document 21 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 2