Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00207/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00207-8/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E. TURNER, No. CIV S-06-0207-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ROD HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for a stay of these

proceedings (Doc. 23). Also pending are several requests for judicial notice (Docs. 34, 35, and

36) filed by plaintiff as well as plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 30). Defendants have filed an

opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order

(Doc. 31) will be addressed by separate findings and recommendations. 

In this civil rights action, plaintiff asserts violations under the Establishment

Claims of the First Amendment. In particular, plaintiff claims that he has been improperly

denied parole based solely on his refusal to participate in Narcotics Anonymous. In their motion

for a stay of these proceedings, defendants state that, on December 5, 2006, plaintiff appeared at

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 37 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 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

2

a subsequent parole hearing which resulted in a recommendation by the Parole Board that

plaintiff be granted parole. 

Defendants argue that a stay of proceedings was appropriate pending review by

the Governor of the State of California. Based on defendants’ counsel’s representation, the

governor has decided not to intervene in the Parole Board’s decision. For this reason,

defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings is now moot. Defendants will be granted an

extension of time to file a response to the complaint. In addition, as defendants note in their

opposition, plaintiff never served formal discovery requests under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. For this additional reason, plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature. 

As to plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 30), plaintiff states that he attempted

informal discovery in February 2007 but that defendants have employed “delaying tactics” to

thwart his request. Initially, the court notes that this case is not yet at issue and that discovery

has not been opened. For this reason alone, plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature. 

With respect to plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice, his first such request (Doc.

34) relates to newspaper articles covering overcrowding in California’s prisons. Because

overcrowding is not the subject of this lawsuit, the court declines to take judicial notice of the

articles. The second request (Doc. 35) relates to newspaper articles covering the governor’s

parole decisions. Because plaintiff has been granted parole, this request is not relevant. The

third request for judicial notice (Doc. 36) relates to plaintiff’s motion to compel. Specifically,

plaintiff seeks judicial notice of prison mail logs documenting when he served informal

discovery requests on defendants. As discussed above, there is no live discovery dispute in this

case. Therefore, there is no need for the court to take judicial notice of the documents outlined

in plaintiff’s third request. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 37 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for a stay of these proceedings (Doc. 23) is denied as

moot; 

2. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days of

the date of this order;

3. Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice (Docs. 34, 35, and 36) are denied;

and

4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 30) is denied. 

DATED: May 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00207-FCD-CMK Document 37 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3