Miller v. Arthur

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Michelle Unique Miller, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	ORDER
vs. 	)
)
Matthew John Arthur, 	)
) 	Case No. 1:26-cv-061
Defendant. 	)
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Dakota Corrections and Rehabilitation Center in New England,
North Dakota. (Doc. No. 2-2). She initiated the above-captioned action on March 6, 2026, with the
submission of an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which the court granted, and a
complaint. (Doc. Nos. 2, 7, and 9).
On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed: a motion requesting a subpoena (Doc. No. 12). On April
9, 2026,she filed what the court construes as a motion to compel. (Doc. No. 19). On April 13, 2026,
Plaintiff filed: (1) a motion to compel production of medical records (Doc. No. 21); (2) a motion
requesting that the court schedule a Rule 16 conference (Doc. No. 22); and a motion for summons.
(Doc. No. 23).
Statute mandates that, prior to ordering service of a prisoner's complaint on the named
defendant, the court must first screen the prisoner's complaint to determine whether it contains any
cognizable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If the complaint survives the initial screening in whole
or in part, the court will instruct the Clerk's office to serve the complaint on the named defendant,,
who will then have a chance to file an answer or otherwise respond. 	Once the defendant has
responded, the court will then direct the parties to submit proposed scheduling and discovery plans
1
Case 1:26-cv-00061-DLH-CRH Document 26 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 2

for its review and schedule a Rule 16 conference. Following the Rule 16 conference, the court will
issue a scheduling and discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1). In the interim, discovery is
not generally 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 not completed its screening of Plaintiff's complaint much less ordered
Defendant to answer or otherwise respond. Consequently, the court finds that Plaintiff's motions
for a subpoena, motions to compel, and motion requesting a Rule 16 conference are premature.
Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena (Doc. No. 12), motions to compel (Doc. Nos. 19 and 20), and
motion requesting a Rule 16 conference (Doc. No. 23) are therefore DENIED without prejudice.
No discovery shall be permitted pending further order of the court.
Insofar as Plaintiff is that summons be issued, her motion (Doc. No.23) is DENIED without
prejudice. Again, the court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint. If the complaint survives initial
screening, the court will instruct the Clerk's office to effectuate service on Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:26-cv-00061-DLH-CRH Document 26 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 2