Opinion
5:24-cv-00131-TES-CHW
07-02-2024
DAVID LITTLE, II., Plaintiff, v. District Attorney RIGBY, Defendant.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CHARLES H. WEIGLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for the Production of Documents ECF No. 9. Plaintiff's request for discovery is premature. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the Court to grant Plaintiff's request for the production of evidence prior to the Court's determination that the Plaintiff has complied with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A and that Plaintiff's complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Schreane v. Middlebrooks, 522 Fed.Appx. 845, 848 (11th Cir. July 2, 2013). Accordingly, Plaintiff's present Motion for the Production of Documents (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.