Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00947-14/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

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

DAVID JOSEPH MADRID, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

A. DE LA CRUZ and M. LOPEZ,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS

REQUESTS

(ECF NOS. 66 & 67).

David Madrid (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated 

in Los Angeles County Jail.

On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter. (ECF No. 66). In the letter, Plaintiff states 

that he has paid for private counsel, and asks for a “continuance” so he can finish drafting 

several motions. 

Plaintiff also filed what he titled a “MOTION TO REQUEST A ‘SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE’; REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY; PRO-BONO COUNSEL; AND 

OBJECTION(S) TO ‘LIMITED DISCOVERY’ BY COURT.” (ECF No. 67). However, in the 

motion itself, Plaintiff only asks the Court to set a scheduling conference and for the “right” to 

answer Defendants’ counsel by way of his retained counsel.

All of Plaintiff’s requests will be denied. It is not clear what motions Plaintiff is 

currently drafting, but this case is currently stayed, except as to the issue of exhaustion. (ECF 

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 68 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 2
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

No. 64). Thus, it does not appear that Plaintiff needs a continuance.

1

 As to Plaintiff’s request 

for a scheduling conference, it will be denied. As mentioned above, this case is stayed except 

as to the issue of exhaustion. There is no need for a scheduling conference at this time. If 

necessary, once the issue of exhaustion has been resolved, the Court will schedule this case.

As to Plaintiff’s request for the “right” to answer through counsel, Plaintiff does not 

need court approval for his attorney to make filings on his behalf. Once Plaintiff’s counsel 

appears,2it will be Plaintiff’s counsel’s responsibility to file motions and respond to motions on 

Plaintiff’s behalf.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests are 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Plaintiff is required to provide Defendants with his initial disclosures (ECF No. 64, pgs. 2-3), but 

Plaintiff does not ask for an extension of this deadline.

2 Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet appeared in this case.

Case 1:18-cv-00947-DAD-EPG Document 68 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 2