Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00136-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM WYATT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00136 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 11]

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 31, 2014.1 

On February 23, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to file a 

First Amended Complaint. On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On 

January 26, 2016, the Court screened the First Amended Complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

file a Second Amended Complaint. On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 

Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint is currently pending screening by the Court.

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery time table. Plaintiff is advised that 

the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In this case, the 

Court has not yet screened the Second Amended Complaint, and service on Defendant has not yet 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on February 7, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 20 Filed 05/25/16 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

been authorized. Once the Second Amended Complaint is screened, the Court authorizes service on 

Defendants, and Defendants answer the complaint, a discovery and scheduling order will issue 

opening discovery for all parties. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for discovery time table is

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 20 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2