Opinion
3:12-cv-00328-LRH-WGC
04-12-2013
CHARLES JUAN PROCTOR, Plaintiff, v. DR. VAN HORN, et al., Defendants
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Compel" (Doc. #17) wherein he asks the court "to order the Nevada Department of Corrections to identify the two (2) employees who signed the attached medical kites." (Id.)
The request contained in Plaintiff's motion is one which is more suited to a discovery request. Discovery is only allowed after the court's entry of a scheduling order, which itself is only entered after the filing of a defendant's answer. The docket herein reflects that on 3/26/13 counsel for the defendants filed a Notice of Acceptance of Service (Doc. # 16) on behalf of Defendants Karen Gedney and John VanHorn in response to this court's order of 3/25/13 (see Doc. # 15.). Pursuant to the terms of that order, once a notice of acceptance of service has been filed, the defendants for whom the Attorney General accepted service will have 60 days from the date of the order (i.e., until 5/25/13) within which to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. # 15-2, ¶ 2.) When defendants do appear, the court will issue a scheduling order. Local Rule 16-1(b). The entry of a scheduling order will allow Plaintiff to undertake discovery at that time, including interrogatories where Plaintiff may seek the identities of the authors of the "kites."
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 17) is DENIED .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: _____________________
Deputy Clerk