Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00962/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00962-1/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 07cv0962

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE GENE RUFF, Civil No. 07-CV-0962 IEG (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

[Doc. # 20]

v.

M. RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants

filed an ex parte application seeking a stay of discovery. For the reasons that follow, the ex parte

application is denied without prejudice as premature. 

Plaintiff filed this action on May 25, 2007. On June 12, 2007, Plaintiff was granted an in forma

pauperis status. On August 28, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for an order revoking Plaintiff’s in

forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and requiring him to pay a filing fee. The motion is set

for hearing on October 5, 2007. On September 25, 2007, Plaintiff served on two Defendants a set of

twenty five interrogatories for each. 

Defendants seek to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion for revocation of Plaintiff’s in

forma pauperis status. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not obtain this status if three or more

of his previous actions have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, “unless

the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Id. In his opposition to Defendants’

motion, Plaintiff does not dispute that he has at least three prior “strikes.” He challenges the

Case 3:07-cv-00962-JLS-CAB Document 21 Filed 10/01/07 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 07cv0962

constitutionality of the statute. Plaintiff also acknowledges that he would not be able to pay the filing

fee. Defendants argue that it is likely that their motion will be granted and the case will effectively be

over. 

At this stage of the litigation any discovery requests, as well a stay of discovery, are premature. 

“[A] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule

26(f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(d). There is no indication that the parties have had a Rule 26(f) meeting

in this case. Defendants filed an Answer on September 4, 2007. This Court scheduled a Case

Management Conference for October 19, 2007. In a § 1983 case, a Rule 26(f) conference usually takes

place after the Case Management Conference. 

Accordingly, no stay of discovery is imposed at this time. Plaintiff’s interrogatories have been

served prematurely. Defendants have no obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories prior to the

Rule 26(f) meeting. The interrogatories shall be deemed served as of the date of the Rule 26(f) meeting

once such meeting occurs, unless ordered otherwise by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00962-JLS-CAB Document 21 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2