Opinion
1:21-cv-00929-SKO (PC)
08-02-2021
RONALD WILLIAM WARD, Plaintiff, v. S. BATRA, et al., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 9)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed several motions to compel the production of medical records and other documents. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, and his complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court has not yet screened the complaint, and no defendants have appeared in this action.
As explained in the Court's First Informational Order, (Doc. 3), a pro se plaintiff with in forma pauperis status may not proceed with a legal action until the Court has screened the plaintiff's complaint and finds that it states a cognizable claim for relief. Because Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening, and he may not proceed with this case until the screening is complete. If the Court finds that the complaint states a cognizable claim for relief, it will direct service on the appropriate defendants at that time. (See Doc. 3 at 3.) If and when the defendants file an answer to the complaint, the Court will issue an order opening discovery. (Id. at 4.)
Because Plaintiff has filed his motions to compel production before any defendant has appeared in this action, and before the Court has opened discovery, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions to compel, without prejudice, as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.