Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: May 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER re: Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Compel Defendants to Produce a "Martinez" Report Doc. # 286 WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff's (second) motion for an order compelling the Defendants to produce a "Martinez" report. (Doc. # 286.) 1 The Plaintiff previously filed a similar motion. (Doc. # 167.) The court denied Plaintiff's earlier motion without prejudice as the court opined the motion was premature. The court noted the parameters of Plaintiff's action
Summary: ORDER re: Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Compel Defendants to Produce a "Martinez" Report Doc. # 286 WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff's (second) motion for an order compelling the Defendants to produce a "Martinez" report. (Doc. # 286.) 1 The Plaintiff previously filed a similar motion. (Doc. # 167.) The court denied Plaintiff's earlier motion without prejudice as the court opined the motion was premature. The court noted the parameters of Plaintiff's action h..
More
ORDER
re: Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Compel Defendants to Produce a "Martinez" Report Doc. # 286
WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff's (second) motion for an order compelling the Defendants to produce a "Martinez" report. (Doc. # 286.)1 The Plaintiff previously filed a similar motion. (Doc. # 167.) The court denied Plaintiff's earlier motion without prejudice as the court opined the motion was premature. The court noted the parameters of Plaintiff's action had not been specifically identified because the Plaintiff's underlying motion was filed while his proposed amended complaint was being evaluated. The court anticipated that if Plaintiff were to file an amended complaint, it would also have to be screened and the subject of another report and recommendation. (Doc. # 220 at 2.)
As predicted, Plaintiff did file an amended complaint, his proposed second amended complaint. (Doc. # 229.) A Report and Recommendation on that proposed amended complaint was submitted to District Judge Larry R. Hicks. (Doc. # 265.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 267.)2 Judge Hicks has not yet evaluated the Report and Recommendation.
Thus, for the same rationale recited by the court in denying Plaintiff's first "Martinez" motion, the court finds the present motion to be premature. Until Judge Hicks establishes the exact parameters of this case and identifies which of the 42+ defendants this action will be allowed to proceed against, the court's consideration of a motion seeking a "Martinez" report is premature.
As with this court's consideration of Plaintiff's initial "Martinez" motion, this order should not be read as suggesting the court will order such a report or that such a report would be appropriate for this case. See, Order. Doc. # 220. The court will consider all of the issues attendant to the propriety of a "Martinez" report if Plaintiff refiles his motion after Judge Hicks has addressed the Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint.
Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 286) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
