Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00890/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00890-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DANIEL GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. STAINER, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00890 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND 

DOCKET TO CORRECT NAME OF 

DEFENDANTS

[ECF No. 12]

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR COURT RECORDS

[ECF No. 13]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed his complaint. On July 9, 2014, he filed a motion to 

amend the complaint and docket to correct the names of certain Defendants. Plaintiff is advised 

that the Court has reviewed the docket and determined that it reflects the correct names as stated 

in his motion. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as moot.

On September 22, 2014, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Plaintiff filed a motion for production 

of documents directed at the Court with respect to court records. Plaintiff is advised that a 

request for production of documents can only be directed at a party or a third party, not the 

Court. Further, Plaintiff is advised that the Court is required to screen complaints brought by 

prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

Case 1:14-cv-00890-RRB Document 14 Filed 01/21/15 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

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Here, discovery is not open at this time since the complaint has 

not yet been screened. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to open discovery is premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED; and

2) Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00890-RRB Document 14 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2