Dragusica v. Robles et al
Filing
16
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Production Of His Medical Records (ECF No. 7 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/17/2011. (Fahrney, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ROBERT FRANCIS DRAGUSICA,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00363-LJO-SMS PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF HIS MEDICAL
RECORDS
v.
12
ROLANDO DIA ROBLES, et al.,
13
(ECF No. 7)
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Robert Francis Dragusica (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
16
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint
17
in this action on March 3, 2011, alleging that he is being denied medical care for his serious medical
18
condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed
19
a motion for a court order granting him access to his medical records. (ECF No. 7.) As Plaintiff was
20
notified via the First Informational Order, an order opening discovery is issued once an answer is
21
filed. (ECF No. 3.) The complaint in this action is still pending screening and Plaintiff’s motion for
22
discovery is premature.
23
Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that discovery is self executing and the opposing party is
24
to have an opportunity to respond to discovery requests prior to requesting intervention of the Court.
25
The Court will only become involved where there is a discovery dispute. Where a party has failed
26
to answer a question, answer an interrogatory, or permit inspection of a document the requesting
27
party may move for an order to compel an answer, production, or inspection. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
28
37(a)(3)(B). Although the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro per, he is required to
1
1
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. Once the complaint is
2
screened and Defendants have filed an answer a discovery and scheduling order will be issued
3
opening discovery in this action. Plaintiff’s motion, filed March 17, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED,
4
as premature.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411
June 17, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
