Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397-7/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

LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00397-GSA-PC

ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

(Doc. 46.)

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on March 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the initial

Complaint, against defendants C/O M. Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O 

Ralph Nunez for use of excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. 

Marquez, Sgt. J. Ybarra, and Lt. Carlos Sandoval for failure to protect Plaintiff.1

 

1 On August 8, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim regarding his disciplinary process from this 

action for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.) The Court also dismissed defendants Daniel Gonzalez and Sergeant 

Ybarra from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. Id. The Court also dismissed 

defendants Saul Ochoa, Harold Tyson, Eric Lunsford, Daniel Gonzalez, and Gina Marquez, without prejudice, on 

Plaintiff’s motion. Id. On October 3, 2012, defendant Sergeant Ybarra was reinstated as a defendant, under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60. (Doc. 22.) Service of process upon defendant Ybarra has been commenced but is not yet 

completed. (Doc. 24.)

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 47 Filed 05/15/13 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

On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting clarification of the Court’s 

discovery order for this action. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendants have 

refused to respond to his Request for Admissions, and he questions whether discovery is 

stayed, or will be stayed, pending the resolution of Defendants’ pending motion to revoke 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status.

Plaintiff is advised that the Court has not issued a discovery order in this action. The 

Court will issue a scheduling order setting a schedule for discovery after Defendants have filed 

an Answer to the complaint. Defendants have not yet filed an Answer. Therefore, the 

discovery phase has not been opened in this case. The parties are precluded from participating 

in discovery at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, Defendants have properly refused to 

respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

This order resolves Plaintiff’s motion for clarification filed on May 13, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 47 Filed 05/15/13 Page 2 of 2