Peach v. White Cloud et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
David Coty Peach, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Correctional Officer FNU White Cloud, 	)
and Correctional Officer FNU Herba, 	)
) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-013
Defendants. 	)
On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed what the court construes as a motion to compel. (Doc. No.
21). 	Plaintiff seeks an order directing the North Dakota State Penitentiary to provide him with
copies of his medical records from April 2024 through May 2024.
On May 28, 2024, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Defendant’ s motion. (Doc.
No. 24). They assert that Plaintiff’s motion is premature given the present posture of this case. The
court agrees.
With respect to discovery in cases such as this, the court employs the following protocol.
First, the court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen plaintiff’s complaint. If, after reviewing
the complaint, the court identifies any cognizable claims, it will direct the Clerk’s office to effectuate
service of the complaint on defendants. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Once served with a copy of the
complaint, defendants are afforded by rule time to file responsive pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
Once defendants have made an appearance and filed a responsive pleading, the court will direct the
parties to submit proposed scheduling and discovery plans. 	Upon receipt and review of these
proposed plans, the court shall issue a scheduling and discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1).
In the interim, until the scheduling and discovery order is issued, discovery is not generally
1
Case 1:24-cv-00013-DMT-CRH Document 26 Filed 10/07/24 Page 1 of 2

permitted. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before
the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial
disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court
order.”).
Here, the court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and directed that it be served on
Defendants, who have in turn filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint which has the potential
to negate the need for them to file a responsive pleadings or the parties to engage in discovery.
Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is premature. 	Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (Docket No. 21) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of October, 2024.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:24-cv-00013-DMT-CRH Document 26 Filed 10/07/24 Page 2 of 2