LANDIS CHARLES BARROW, PRO SE, TDCJ-ID #9907416 Plaintiff, v. BRADFORD LEWIS WEST ET AL., Defendants

No. 2:01-CV-0175United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
June 11, 2001

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
CLINTON E. AVERITTE, Judge

On this day came for consideration plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, filed June 7, 2001, in the above-referenced and numbered cause. By this motion, plaintiff requests the Court order the Potter County Defendants to respond to Interrogatories which plaintiff states he mailed to the Potter County Defendants by certified mail on April 12, 2001. The Court notes plaintiff does not state he has any receipt verifying delivery of his Interrogatories.

Only a small number (the Potter County Defendants) of the total defendants have been served and have answered. Process has not issued or been served on the remaining defendants. At plaintiff’s request, and based upon his financial disclosures and representation that he could not pay the necessary costs of serving the remaining defendants, the Court has granted his motion for pauper status. Subsequently, to assist in the screening process for pauper complaints, the Court issued a Briefing Order requiring plaintiff and the Potter County Defendants to brief specific issues and respond by June 14, 2001.

The statutorily-mandated screening of plaintiff’s complaint by the Court pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 1915A and section 1915(e) has not been completed. Consequently, further defendants have not been served and plaintiff’s present attempts to conduct discovery are premature. Discovery will be appropriate upon receipt of an answer or other responsive pleading only after service upon all the defendants the Court orders served. At such time, the Court will issue a Scheduling Order which will contain provisions governing discovery.

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENTED.