POLLARD v. CLARK

W.D. Pennsylvania

POLLARD v. CLARK

DecidedJune 14, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00194

StatusUnknown

This text of POLLARD v. CLARK (POLLARD v. CLARK) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

POLLARD v. CLARK, (W.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESLEY POLLARD, SR. ) ) Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00194-SPB-RAL ) vs. ) SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL ) CLARK, et al., ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants ) ) ECF No. 25 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Plaintiff Wesley Pollard, Sr., filed a “Motion for Documentary and Physical Evidence of Videotape” on May 28, 2021. ECF No. 25. The motion is DENIED because discovery at this time is premature. The Court’s Standing Practice Order for Pro Se Civil Rights Cases, which was issued to the parties when the case commenced, states the following: If a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), (e), or (f) motion is filed, the parties should wait to conduct any discovery until after the motion has been ruled on by the court. If the case survives these motions, then the defendants will file an answer to the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). ECF No. 7, 5. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on March 10, 2021. ECF No. 17. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his motion for discovery. In addition to failing to comply with the Court’s Order, the Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery before the resolution of a timely filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Bush vy. Dep’t of Human Servs., 642 Fed. Appx. 84 (3d Cir. 2016).

Because of the pending motion to dismiss, discovery will not commence in this case unless the Court denies the motion. The Standing Practice Order specifies: After an answer has been filed, the court will enter a case management order specifying deadlines for discovery and the filing of summary judgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. ECF No. 7, § 6. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied. So Ordered. AG CLD Dated: June 14, 2021 RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Magistrate Judge

,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESLEY POLLARD, SR. ) ) Plaintiff ) Case No. 1:20-cv-00194-SPB-RAL ) vs. ) SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL ) CLARK, et al., ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants ) ) ECF No. 25 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY Plaintiff Wesley Pollard, Sr., filed a “Motion for Documentary and Physical Evidence of Videotape” on May 28, 2021. ECF No. 25. The motion is DENIED because discovery at this time is premature. The Court’s Standing Practice Order for Pro Se Civil Rights Cases, which was issued to the parties when the case commenced, states the following: If a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), (e), or (f) motion is filed, the parties should wait to conduct any discovery until after the motion has been ruled on by the court. If the case survives these motions, then the defendants will file an answer to the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). ECF No. 7, 5. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on March 10, 2021. ECF No. 17. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his motion for discovery. In addition to failing to comply with the Court’s Order, the Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery before the resolution of a timely filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Bush vy. Dep’t of Human Servs., 642 Fed. Appx. 84 (3d Cir. 2016).

Because of the pending motion to dismiss, discovery will not commence in this case unless the Court denies the motion. The Standing Practice Order specifies: After an answer has been filed, the court will enter a case management order specifying deadlines for discovery and the filing of summary judgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. ECF No. 7, § 6. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied. So Ordered. AG CLD Dated: June 14, 2021 RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Magistrate Judge

,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

POLLARD v. CLARK, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollard-v-clark-pawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack