Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03581/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03581-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

No. C 06-3581 MMC (PR) 

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING

ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO

COMPEL, FOR SANCTIONS, AND

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER;

STAYING DEFENDANTS’

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS; DENYING

AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

On June 5, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against

Warden M.S. Evans (“Evans”), Sergeant M. J. Kircher (“Kircher”), and Captain G. Ponder

(“Ponder”), all SVSP officials. On December 11, 2006, the Court found plaintiff’s

allegations stated cognizable claims for relief, ordered the amended complaint served upon

defendants, and ordered defendants to file a dispositive motion or indicate they were of the

opinion that plaintiff’s claims could not be resolved by such a motion. After being granted

an extension of time, defendants filed two separate motions. Specifically, on March 12,

2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to

Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground plaintiff had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies, and on April 11, 2007, defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment on plaintiff’s First Amendment and Equal Protection claims.

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 21), attached to

Case 3:06-cv-03581-MMC Document 25 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

which are numerous exhibits, discovery requests, and proposed orders, as well as a motion

for sanctions for alleged failure to produce discovery, a motion for a protective order, and a

motion for enlargement of time in which to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Within 21 days of the date this order is filed, defendants shall file an opposition to

plaintiff’s motions to compel, for sanctions and for a protective order. Plaintiff may file a

reply to defendants’ opposition, provided he does so within 14 days of the date the opposition

is filed. 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are hereby STAYED until

the above-described discovery motions are resolved, at which time the Court will set a new

briefing schedule on said motions. Plaintiff’s motion for an enlargement of time to file

opposition to the motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-03581-MMC Document 25 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2