Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00388-12/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BULKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. OCHOA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STAY PENDING OUTCOME OF

DISCOVERY AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

20 DAYS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NO. 62)

20-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

1983. On April 21, 2016, defendants Alvarez, Mares, and Ochoa (“Defendants”) filed a motion 

for summary judgment. (ECF No. 47). On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a 30-day 

extension to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 50). The Court1

granted Plaintiff’s request. On June 8, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to modify the 

discovery and scheduling order, but granted Plaintiff another extension of time. (ECF No. 52). 

On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time (ECF No. 55). According 

to the motion, Plaintiff filed discovery requests on November 20, 2015, January 15, 2016, and 

June 17, 2016. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants failed to respond to any discovery 

requests. The Court granted the extension of time, ruled that the discovery requests of January 

 

1 Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck was the presiding magistrate judge at the time, and continued to be the presiding 

magistrate judge until September 8, 2016.

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/03/16 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

27

28

2

15, 2016, and June 17, 2016, were untimely, and ordered Defendants to file a status report 

concerning the status of Plaintiff’s November 20, 2015, discovery request. (ECF No. 56). 

Defendants filed their status report on August 11, 2016. (ECF No. 60). According to 

Defendants, they never received the November 20, 2015, discovery request. Defendants point out 

that Plaintiff failed to mention the November 20, 2015, discovery request in his motion to modify 

the discovery and scheduling order or in his previous request to extend his deadline to respond to 

Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Defendants also point out that the November 20, 2015, 

discovery request was also untimely because the discovery cutoff was December 8, 2015, and all 

written discovery requests were required to have been served thirty days prior to the close of 

discovery.

On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed this motion to stay proceedings pending outcome 

of discovery. Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion for summary judgment or to stay the 

proceedings so that he can obtain discovery from Defendants. The reason for Plaintiff’s request 

is that Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

The Court will not deny the motion for summary judgment at this time on the basis of the 

discovery issue. Additionally, the Court will not stay the proceedings. Plaintiff has already 

requested numerous extensions of time, which were granted. Additionally, it appears that 

Plaintiff failed to bring up Defendants’ alleged failure to respond to the November 20, 2015, 

discovery request until approximately July of 2016. Plaintiff had numerous opportunities to bring 

this alleged failure to the Court’s attention, but did not. In any event, it appears that Plaintiff’s

discovery request was untimely. The discovery cutoff was December 8, 2015, and all written 

discovery requests were required to have been served thirty days prior to the close of discovery.

Therefore, the Court will not stay the proceedings. The Court will, however, grant 

Plaintiff twenty (20) days to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. While 

Plaintiff states that he cannot oppose the motion without discovery, the Court notes that he can 

rely on his own affidavit in opposition to the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending 

outcome of discovery is DENIED.

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/03/16 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

27

28

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of 

this order to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was filed on 

April 21, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00388-DAD-EPG Document 63 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 3