Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third 

Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2015, for violation of the Eighth Amendment and 

negligence against numerous Defendants. Defendants are not represented by the same attorney, and 

not all Defendants have appeared in this action. Service for the most recently added Defendants was 

ordered on March 2, 2015.

On March 3, 2015, the Court lifted the stay of the two motions for summary judgment filed by 

Defendants1and set a briefing schedule.

 

1

Defendant Anderson’s motion for summary judgment was filed on November 26, 2014. Defendants Arbadia, Barbolla, 

Ceballo, Clark, Holt, Rios, Ross and Torres also filed their motion for summary judgment on November 26, 2014.

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO LIFT STAY AS MOOT

(Document 220)

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 222 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On March 16, 2015, the Court received a motion from Plaintiff requesting that the Court lift 

the stay on Defendant Anderson’s motion for summary judgment, but continue the stay for the motion

filed by Defendants Arbadia, Barbolla, Ceballo, Clark, Holt, Rios, Ross and Torres.

As the Court has already lifted the stays, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

To the extent that Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the stay for the motion filed by 

Defendants Arbadia, Barbolla, Ceballo, Clark, Holt, Rios, Ross and Torres, the Court will not do so. 

Plaintiff argues that discovery for the “newly added Defendants could result in new or additional 

evidence that could effect [sic] the merits of the motion for summary judgment filed by Clark, et al.” 

ECF No. 220, at 2 (emphasis added).

This Court has been lenient with Plaintiff in permitting him to file amended complaints and 

add Defendants. This has resulted, however, in numerous Defendants entering this action at different 

stages of the proceeding. Indeed, Plaintiff has amended once to add the names of Doe Defendants 

(which resulted in twelve new Defendants), and amended a second time to add the names of newly 

discovered Defendants Kim and Montebon. At this time, ten of the twelve newly added Doe 

Defendants have answered, and there is no indication that Defendants Kim and Montebon have even 

been served.

Discovery, however, closed on September 29, 2014. Therefore, at the time of the most recent 

answer, filed on March 2, 2015, there was no applicable discovery order to impose upon the newly 

answered Defendants. This means that as of this time, discovery is closed and Plaintiff is not entitled 

to discovery for the newly-added Defendants. This is not to say that Plaintiff may not be entitled to 

some degree of discovery, but to obtain any discovery, Plaintiff must move to reopen discovery. Such 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 222 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a motion must establish good cause for reopening discovery, including a showing that Plaintiff moved 

expeditiously to add Defendants and a description of what discovery is necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 222 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 3