Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00922/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00922-0/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

27

28

1 05cv922-L(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY JOE DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUZIL RUAN, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv922-L (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

[Doc. No. 99]

Plaintiff Bobby Joe Daniels, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a first

amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleges that various officials at Calipatria

State Prison violated his due process rights, his right to freedom of speech, and his right to be free from

cruel and unusual punishment [Doc. No. 87]. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to

Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 99] and affidavit in support. Plaintiff alleges that he has sent

interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents to Defendants, and

none of his requests have been answered. (Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion, 3.) Plaintiff states in his

affidavit in support of his motion that he has requested business records and copies of the prison’s

“Institutional Operational Procedures.” (Plaintiff’s Affidavit ¶¶ 7, 13.) He argues that this information

is relevant to his claims of fraud and deceit by an administrative body of the prison. (Id. ¶¶ 13.) 

Based on the current procedural posture of this case, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is

premature. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed on March 9, 2006 after the District Court

granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 69]. Plaintiff was granted leave to

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 100 Filed 10/20/06 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 05cv922-L(NLS)

file an amended complaint, however Plaintiff chose instead to appeal the Court’s ruling to the Ninth

Circuit [Doc. No. 72]. On July 5, 2006, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because an order of a district court dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not

appealable [Doc. No. 79]. The District Court subsequently advised Plaintiff that he had until September

11, 2006 to file a first amended complaint [Doc. No. 82]. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint in

compliance with the Court’s order [Doc. No. 87]. On September 26, 2006, in lieu of answering,

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which is set for hearing before this Court on October 24, 2006 for purposes of

preparation of a Report & Recommendation [Doc. No. 92]. Because the motion may result in the

dismissal of a substantial portion of the complaint, the Court has deferred issuing a scheduling order

regulating discovery and all other pretrial proceedings in this case until the motion to dismiss is

resolved. As such, discovery has not yet commenced in this action. Plaintiff’s requests for discovery

from Defendants are inappropriate at this juncture, and his request for a court order compelling

discovery from Defendants is premature. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion

to Compel [Doc. No. 99]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 100 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2