Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00309-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK RAYMOND PHELPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

1:13-cv-0309-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 4)

Plaintiff Mark Raymond Phelps (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion asking for permission to serve his

interrogatories and to have the Court compel defendants to respond. 

The Court’s First Informational Order, which was issued to Plaintiff after he filed his

Complaint, specifically states, “No discovery may be conducted without court permission

until an answer is filed and the court issues the discovery order.” (emphasis in original)

(ECF No. 3.) Only if the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim, ordered

Plaintiff’s Complaint to be served, and if defendants file an answer, will the Court will issue

-1-

Case 1:13-cv-00309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/08/13 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

a discovery and scheduling order which will provide the parties with time in which to

conduct discovery. Until that point in this litigation, Plaintiff will not be able to conduct any

discovery.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 4) is premature. It is DENIED without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:13-cv-00309-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 2