Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01081/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01081-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Defendant
Gary William Hallford
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WILLIAM HALLFORD, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1081 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. By order filed on October 31, 2006, this court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave

to amend, wherein plaintiff purported to sue some 55,000 state employees, including each

member of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA); no complaint or

amended complaint therefore is pending in this matter before the court at this time. Plaintiff, on

October 20, 2006, filed a “motion for formal discovery,” wherein plaintiff served his discovery

requests upon the court.

This filing is defective for more than one reason. In the first place, there is no

action currently pending in this matter, as plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint, and

should he do so, that filing will have to be screened by the court before the action could proceed,

Case 2:06-cv-01081-GEB-GGH Document 31 Filed 12/18/06 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

 Plaintiff was granted a 20-day extension of time to file an amended complaint, by order 1

filed on November 20, 2006.

2

if it does, against any defendants. Therefore, there are no defendants upon which plaintiff could 1

even serve discovery requests at this point. Second, even assuming plaintiff does file a timely

amended complaint and, after court screening, the action is allowed to proceed as to any

defendants, it is not necessary that court permission be sought to serve discovery requests. 

Neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed

until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall

not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 20, 2006,

premature and otherwise inapposite “motion for formal discovery” be stricken.

DATED: 12/18/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hall1081.dny

Case 2:06-cv-01081-GEB-GGH Document 31 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2