Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01771/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01771-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON McCOY

Plaintiff,

v.

M. TANN, et al.

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

1:11-cv-01771-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS

MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 3 & 4)

Plaintiff Aaron McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.)

Plaintiff has two motions pending before the Court. In his first motion, Plaintiff asks

that the Warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran produce a

copy of the videotape of the June 9, 2010 incident that underlies Plaintiff’s action. (ECF

No. 3.) Although this motion is captioned as a request for injunctive relief, it in fact appears

to be a discovery request. In his second motion, Plaintiff asks that he be allowed to exceed

fifteen pages in his Complaint. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff’s motions are now before the Court.

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 05/22/12 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

I. MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF VIDEO

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 25, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court

screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, and gave Plaintiff the option of either proceeding on his one

cognizable claim or filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff’s response is due

by June 11, 2011. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed a motion with the Court, in which he asks that the

warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility - Corcoran produce a videotape. 

(ECF No. 3.) 

The Court’s First Informational Order, which was issued to Plaintiff after he filed his

Complaint, specifically states, “No discovery may be conducted without court permission

until an answer is filed and the court issues the discovery order.” (emphasis in original)

(ECF No. 5.) Only after the Complaint has been screened, served and a response filed 

to it will the Court issue a discovery and scheduling order instructing the parties as to the

time in which to conduct discovery.

Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 3) is premature at this time and is DENIED.

II. MOTION TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGE LIMIT ON COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking that he be allowed to file a complaint

exceeding fifteen pages in length. (ECF No. 4.) The Court has already screened Plaintiff’s

Complaint and given him the option of either proceeding on his cognizable claim or filing

an amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) There is no requirement that the amended

complaint be less than fifteen pages in length. (Though Plaintiff is here advised that brevity

is more likely to serve his purposes.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to exceed the page limit is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01771-LJO-MJS Document 11 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 2