Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02951-JCM-CWH
04-07-2017
DEJON DIMITRI DIXON, Plaintiff, v. MANDALAY BAY HOTEL AND CASINO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the court is Plaintiff Dejon Dimitri Dixon's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on December 20, 2016.
Also before the court is Defendants Mandalay Corp. and MGM Resorts International's proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 6), filed on April 4, 2017. I. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney and seeks to proceed without prepayment of fees in this matter. Plaintiff has submitted the declaration required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or give security for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Generally, if the court grants an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court orders the clerk of court to file the complaint and screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The purpose of screening is to identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the complaint survives screening, the court then orders service of process under Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the case then proceeds on the normal litigation track. / / /
Although this case has not been screened and the court has not ordered service, Defendants have answered and now seek to begin discovery. (Answer (ECF No. 4); Proposed Discovery Plan (ECF No. 6).) Given Defendants' appearance in the case and their apparent willingness to defend the case on its merits, the court finds that it would not be in the interest of judicial economy to screen the complaint. The court therefore will order this case to proceed on the normal litigation track.
II. DISCOVERY PLAN
Local Rule 26-1(a) requires that the "pro se plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney must initiate the scheduling of the conference required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) to be held within 30 days after the first defendant answers or otherwise appears. Fourteen days after the mandatory Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference, the parties must submit a stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order." More than 30 days have passed since Defendants filed their answer on February 15, 2017. In their proposed discovery plan, Defendants represent to the court that they have been unable to contact Plaintiff to coordinate discovery deadlines. Defendants therefore submitted a unilateral proposed discovery plan and scheduling order rather than a stipulated proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.
The court has reviewed and considered the discovery plan and finds that it complies with Local Rule 26-1(b) and includes the standard 180-day discovery period, measured from the date Defendants filed their answer. The court therefore will approve the discovery plan despite Plaintiff's failure to participate in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference. The court will sign and separately file Defendants' proposed discovery plan and scheduling order in the court's docket.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Dejon Dimitri Dixon's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must detach and file Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1). / / /
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will not issue a screening order in this case and that this case will proceed on the normal litigation track.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Mandalay Corp. and MGM Resorts International's proposed discovery plan and scheduling order (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. The court will sign and separately file the scheduling order.
DATED: April 7, 2017
/s/ _________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge