Filed: Jul. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADDESSING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND ASSISTANCE (Doc. 56.) GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge. Malcolm Yisrael Wright ("Plaintiff") is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 4, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on January 13, 2011, against defendan
Summary: ORDER ADDESSING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND ASSISTANCE (Doc. 56.) GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge. Malcolm Yisrael Wright ("Plaintiff") is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 4, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on January 13, 2011, against defendant..
More
ORDER ADDESSING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND ASSISTANCE (Doc. 56.)
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Malcolm Yisrael Wright ("Plaintiff") is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 4, 2010. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on January 13, 2011, against defendants Warden Smith and Lieutenant ("Lt.") Gonzales for interference with Plaintiff's incoming mail, in violation of the First Amendment; and against Warden Smith, Lt. Gonzales, and Lt. Miller for violation of his First Amendment rights to exercise his religion.1 (Doc. 10.) This case is presently in the discovery phase.
On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for clarification, instruction, and assistance from the court. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff asserts that during the past six months he has attempted to obtain information about conducting discovery, without success, and has no idea how to conduct discovery. Plaintiff requests assistance from the court. Plaintiff also inquires whether an attorney appointed to represent him at trial would be able to conduct discovery even if the discovery deadline had expired.
Plaintiff is directed to the Discovery/Scheduling Order issued by the court in this action on November 13, 2013, for information about discovery procedures and applicable court rules. (Doc. 46.) Copies of this court's Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be available to Plaintiff in the prison law library.
Pursuant to the Discovery/Scheduling Order, the deadline for the parties to conduct discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, expires on July 13, 2014.2 (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff is advised that if he requires an extension of the discovery deadline, he should file a motion before the deadline expires.3
Plaintiff's inquiry about whether an appointed attorney could conduct discovery after the discovery deadline cannot be answered without undue speculation. Requiring district courts to advise a pro se litigant in such a manner would undermine the judges' role as impartial decisionmakers. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183-184, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (a defendant does not have a constitutional right to receive personal instruction from the judge on courtroom procedure, and "the Constitution [does not] require judges to take over chores for a pro se defendant that would normally be attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course").
This order resolves Plaintiff's motion for clarification filed on June 30, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
