Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00003-42/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

DARREN HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO ENGAGE IN DISCOVERY WITH NONPARTY CLARK

(Doc. 161)

Plaintiff Darren Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 on January 3, 2005. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff=s fourth amended complaint against Defendants Olivarria, 

Williams, and Kim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendants Olivarria and 

Lowden for violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 87.) This action was previously scheduled 

for trial on April 21, 2015, but on September 25, 2014, based Defendant Kim’s deployment to 

Afghanistan, the Court vacated the trial date and stayed the case pursuant to 50 App. U.S.C. § 

522(b), Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003. (Doc. 150.) Pursuant to the stay order,

Defendants Olivarria, Williams, Lowden, and Kim (“Defendants”) are required to file a status 

report on or before June 1, 2015. 

On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to engage in discovery with 

“Defendant Clark,” of whom he became aware when Clark’s name was included on Defendants 

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 165 Filed 04/08/15 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

Olivarria, Williams, Kim, and Lowden’s recent filing and proof of service.1 Clark was named as a 

defendant in Plaintiff’s original complaint and subsequently waived service of the summons and 

complaint. (Docs. 1, 32.) However, Clark was not named as a defendant in the fourth amended 

complaint, which is the operative pleading in this action. (Doc. 64.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to engage in discovery with Clark is HEREBY 

DENIED, with prejudice, and Defendants’ counsel shall correct the administrative error that led to 

the misidentification of Clark as a party in recent documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff acknowledges awareness of the party and claim identification set forth in the Court’s multiple orders, and he 

does not recall who Clark is or whether Clark is a party. (Doc. 161.)

Case 1:05-cv-00003-AWI-SKO Document 165 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2