Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01625-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR COPY, AND 

(2) DENYING REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 49)

CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF COPY OF 

ECF No. 42

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendants Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim. (ECF No. 16.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 27, 2015 request for a copy of the Court’s 

discovery and scheduling order. Plaintiff states that he has been moved to a new 

institution and does not have his legal materials. He requests a copy of the discovery 

and scheduling order to alert officials at his new institution of pending deadlines in this 

action and to thereby more readily obtain his legal materials. (ECF No. 49.) 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 50 Filed 03/09/15 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

Plaintiff’s request for a copy will be granted. To the extent Plaintiff’s lack of his 

legal property interferes with his ability to meet deadlines in this action, he may seek an 

extension of time. 

Plaintiff’s request also states that he asked defense counsel to arrange a 

telephonic discovery dispute conference on February 19, 2015. He does not state the 

basis for requesting such a conference, and so the request will be denied. Plaintiff may 

renew his request by setting forth precisely what discovery he believes is lacking and 

why.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for copy (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of ECF No. 42; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for a discovery dispute conference is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 50 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 2