Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00817/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00817-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEUBARTH, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 817 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MEDICAL

RECORDS (Doc. 10.) 

 Edward Larson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

June 22, 2005, naming Drs. Neubarth, Salazar, Kim and Sacks as Defendants. 

On June 19, 2006, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff

submitted his Amended Complaint (erroneously titled Second Amended complaint) on July 17,

2006, which is pending before the Court. 

On January 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for Medical Records.” In

this Motion, Plaintiff asks for an Olsen medical review of his records. Plaintiff appears to be

concerned with events that happened at Pleasant Valley State Prison from November 2, to

Case 1:05-cv-00817-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 01/17/07 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

November 7. Plaintiff does not state what year these events took place. 

Plaintiff’s request must be DENIED. First, the Court has not yet opened discovery in this

case and will not do so until such time as it has determined that the Complaint states cognizable

claims for relief and the defendants have been served. 

Second, Plaintiff may not conduct discovery relating to events that occurred after he filed

this action. Plaintiff filed this action in June of 2005, thus, should he have experienced new

claims concerning medical issues that arose after that time and that do not relate to a claim raised

in this action, Plaintiff may not conduct discovery. Such allegations are not part of this action

and cannot become part of the action through amendment because they were not exhausted prior

to the initiation of this action in June 2005. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201

(9th Cir.2002) (exhaustion of administrative remedies must occur prior to filing action and may

not occur while the suit is pending.) 

Finally, Plaintiff does not need a Court order to conduct an Olsen review of his records.

An Olsen review is an institutional procedure and thus, Plaintiff must follow institutional

whatever mechanism is in place in the institution in order to request and obtain such a review. 

Thus, even if the allegations were part of this action and discovery were open, Plaintiff would not

be able to obtain a Court order to be able to conduct an Olsen review.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Medical Records is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00817-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2