Torres v. Zingale

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 24, 2022
• Docket: 6:22-cv-01298
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ANGEL L. TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1298-WWB-LHP

JIM ZINGALE, ANDREA MORELAND, LISA VICKERS, CLARK ROGERS, ANN COFFIN, ANA SAAVEDRA, TIFFANY MOORE RUSSELL, SUPPORT MAGISTRATES OFFICE, STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, JUDITH ROMAN and OFFICE OF CLERK OF COURT,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 24) FILED: October 20, 2022

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion seeking to compel Defendants

to respond to discovery that he contends he attached to his original complaint. Doc. No. 24. The motion is due to be denied because discovery has not yet opened in this case. See 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). ...”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (setting forth the requirements and timing for a case management conference). It does not appear that the parties have yet conducted their case

management conference, and no case management report has yet been filed -

indeed, it appears that several Defendants have not yet been served or made an

appearance in this case. Thus, discovery has not yet commenced, and the motion to compel (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED. Plaintiff is again reminded that a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 24, 2022.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record -2-

Unrepresented Parties