Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Atkinson
Defendant
Raymond McGinnis
Plaintiff

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

RAYMOND McGINNIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. ATKINSON, 

Defendant.

1:12cv02045 AWI DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

CLARIFY HIS REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

(Document 30)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Raymond McGinnis, a state 

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on December 17, 2012. 

The action is proceeding against Defendant Atkinson for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust on December 13, 

2013. On April 16, 2014, the Court converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment and 

ordered the parties to inform the Court whether additional exhaustion-related discovery was 

necessary. The Court noted that the exhaustion issue appeared to be fully briefed, but that pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), it would consider requests for further discovery.

On May 8, 2014, Defendant informed the Court that no additional discovery was needed.

On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled, “Motion for Order of Discovery.” 

Plaintiff does not state whether he is seeking additional discovery, nor does he reference the Court’s 

prior order, and the nature of his request is therefore unclear.

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 05/19/14 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to clarify his request. Plaintiff is reminded that general 

discovery has not yet opened in this action, and will only open if the complaint survives the pending 

exhaustion challenge. 

Therefore, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 

inform the Court whether additional discovery related to exhaustion is necessary. If Plaintiff 

requests additional discovery, he must identify the discovery and explain why it is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 2