Opinion
C23-0988-KKE
12-13-2023
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM HARRIS, Plaintiffs, v. LISA COMBS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF
KYMBERLY K. EVANSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to add a defendant (Dkt. No 16), Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20), and Plaintiff's motions requesting that the Court initiate an investigation of his claims (Dkt. Nos. 23 & 24).
Plaintiff's motion to add a defendant (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED because it is duplicative of a subsequent motion (Dkt. No. 21) requesting the same relief.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice as premature at this early point in the proceeding, where there are multiple pending motions to amend the complaint. See, e.g., White v. Sanchez, No. CV 21-04066-GW (DFM), 2023 WL 4290386, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023) (“Summary judgment is generally not appropriate until the parties have had an opportunity to pursue discovery.”).
Plaintiff's motions for investigation (Dkt. Nos. 23 & 24) are DENIED because the Court is aware of no authority supporting this form of relief. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Mosqudea, No. ED CV 21-01741-FWS (DFM), 2022 WL 18396425, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2022) (denying plaintiff's motion for investigation because he “has not identified, and the Court is unaware of, any Congressional authority permitting the Court to pay for an investigator for him in this civil action”).