ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST

Re: Dkt. No. 61

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Proceeding pro se, plaintiff J. D. Jordan requests "the court to allow discovery" in his case following a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) states that "[o]n notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." Local Rule 37-1(a) states that "[t]he Court will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues."

Here, Jordan has not supplied the Court with proof that he attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding discovery disputes and his request is therefore denied. However, the denial is without prejudice, and Jordan may make the request again after he has met and discussed his discovery issues with Defendants in good faith. If, after the parties confer, there is an unresolved dispute, the parties should present it in a joint discovery brief not to exceed five pages.

To assist Jordan, the Court attaches a letter with information and resources available for pro se litigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.