Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00661-13/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

Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 

the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302. Defendant has not consented 

or declined to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion entitled “discovery for case resolution,” filed 

January 3, 2017. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an “order for discovery for case resolution that 

Plaintiff was a victim of a crime” and that Defendant Clendehen is liable under the United States 

Constitution. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. 

Plaintiff is advised that he bears the burden of proof in proving the allegations in this case, and 

Defendant must be provided the opportunity to defend against the allegations by way of filing a 

dispositive motion, if so desired. In this case, on May 19, 2016, Defendant filed a pre-answer motion 

to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the allegations failed to give rise to a cognizable claim for 

ALBERT J. HAMILTON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLENDEHEN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY FOR CASE RESOLUTION

[ECF No. 64] 

Case 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB Document 65 Filed 01/04/17 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

relief. On November 7, 2016, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending 

that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied. If the Findings and Recommendations are adopted in 

full by the district judge, then Defendant will be directed to file a further response to the complaint. If 

and when an answer is filed to the complaint, the Court will issue a discovery and scheduling order 

opening discovery and setting for the deadlines for filing further dispositive motions. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s motion for resolution of the instant case is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB Document 65 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 2