Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Byron Ford
Plaintiff
F. J. Martinez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

RAY BYRON FORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. J. MARTINEZ,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-00381 REC LJO 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF”S REQUEST

FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 

(Doc. 8) 

Ray Byron Ford (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

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

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 22, 2005. On April 4, 2005, this Court issued

an Informational Order informing plaintiff of various requirements and procedures that will occur

during the course of the instant proceedings. In that Order, Plaintiff was informed that the Court

must first conduct a preliminary screening of the case to determine whether the complaint states

any cognizable claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Only after the Court has made a

preliminary determination that the case can proceed, will the Court direct the Complaint to be

served on any defendants. In addition, the Order informed Plaintiff that only after Defendants

have made an appearance in the action will an Order opening discovery issue. 

In this case, the Court has yet to conduct its preliminary screening and thus, no service

has occurred, no appearance has been made by defendants and no answer or other responsive

pleading has been filed. As such, Plaintiff’s request to open discovery is not only premature, it is

Case 1:05-cv-00381-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 05/04/05 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

unnecessary. The Court understands Plaintiff’s desire to obtain the names of the Does named in

his action via discovery. However, until the Court has determined that the complaint states

cognizable claims for relief under Section 1983, no discovery will take place. In addition,

Plaintiff is forewarned that this Court has pending before it literally hundreds of cases similar to

Plaintiff’s and thus, the screening process often takes time. Plaintiff can rest assured that the

Court will screen his complaint as quickly as possible, however, that may not be as speedily as

Plaintiff would like. Nevertheless, Plaintiff should remain patient and should keep the Court

apprised of any change of address that he might have to ensure that he receives copies of all

Orders issued in his case. 

Accordingly, the Request to Initiate Discovery is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00381-LJO -GSA Document 9 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2