Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02034/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02034-17/pdf.json

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

---

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

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MOON, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-02034-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 87)

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery, stating that discovery had been stayed in this matter pending a settlement 

conference, and since the case did not settle, discovery should be re-opened. (ECF No. 87.) 

Notably, Plaintiff filed this motion under the above case number, but using the caption, “Matthew 

James Griffin, Plaintiff, vs. A. Johnson, et al., Defendants.” (Id. at 1.)

Plaintiff’s motion is denied, as discovery has never been stayed in this matter. Instead, the 

Court is awaiting Plaintiff’s additional objections to the findings and recommendations issued on 

January 28, 2016, which are currently due on or before May 26, 2016. (ECF No. 85.) 

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-02034-LJO-BAM Document 88 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 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

2

However, discovery was stayed for a short time in a different case pending before this 

Court involving Plaintiff, Griffin v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM.1The 

Court informs Plaintiff that the stay of discovery was lifted in that matter by an order issued on 

May 5, 2016. That order was also served by mail on Plaintiff the same day it was issued, and may 

have crossed the instant motion in the mail. 

To avoid any confusion or mis-filings in the future, the Court cautions Plaintiff to take care 

in writing the captions on his filings, and to make sure he uses the correct case numbers. Improper 

filings may result in significant delays in the litigation, or possibly denial of relief.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery, (ECF No. 87), is HEREBY 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the other case currently pending before it 

concerning Plaintiff and different defendants. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also United States v. Howard, 381 

F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (appropriate for district court to take judicial notice of court records in 

another case).

Case 1:12-cv-02034-LJO-BAM Document 88 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2