Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00922/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00922-1/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 05cv922-L(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY JOE DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUZIL RUAN, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv922-L (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO DEPOSE TWO STAFF WITNESSES

[Doc. No. 103]

Plaintiff Bobby Joe Daniels, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a first

amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleges that various officials at Calipatria

State Prison violated his due process rights, his right to freedom of speech, and his right to be free from

cruel and unusual punishment [Doc. No. 87]. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Leave of Court

to Depose Two Staff Witnesses [Doc. No. 103] and affidavit in support. Plaintiff seeks an order of the

Court granting him permission to conduct written depositions of two prison staff members whom he

believes are witnesses to the events that gave rise to his current civil rights claims. Plaintiff’s request is

his second attempt to conduct discovery in this case since filing his amended complaint. As the Court

advised Plaintiff in its October 20, 2006 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel

Discovery [Doc. No. 100], based on the current procedural posture of this case, Plaintiff’s attempts to

conduct discovery, including this current request, are premature. On September 26, 2006, Defendants

filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), which is currently pending before this Court for purposes of preparation of a Report &

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 104 Filed 10/31/06 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 05cv922-L(NLS)

Recommendation [Doc. No. 92]. Because the motion may result in the dismissal of a substantial portion

of the amended complaint, the Court has deferred issuing a scheduling order regulating discovery and all

other pretrial proceedings in this case until the motion to dismiss is resolved. As such, discovery has not

yet commenced in this action. Plaintiff’s requests for discovery from Defendants are inappropriate at

this juncture, and his request for a court order compelling the written depositions of two prison staff

members is premature. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Leave of Court to

Depose Two Staff Witnesses [Doc. No. 103]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS Document 104 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2