Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01100/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01100-7/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 Thomas Goolsby is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kimberly Holland 

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

Previously in this matter, on February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel. (ECF

No. 39.) On March 10, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 41), and a 

motion for stay, (ECF No. 44). Subsequently, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s 

first motion to compel, and ordered various discovery be exchanged, and that a meet and confer occur. 

(ECF No. 45.) 

Defendant argued in the motion for stay that all discovery, including Plaintiff’s second motion to 

compel, should be stayed pending the outcome of the motion for summary judgment. Defendant 

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KIMBERLY HOLLAND,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01100-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND 

TO MOTION TO STAY

(ECF No. 44)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-01100-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

specifically argues that the outstanding discovery may not be necessary for deciding the pending 

motion for summary judgment, particularly since Holland has moved for summary judgment on the 

basis of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 44-1, p. 2-3.) 

Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for stay was due on or before April 4, 2016. Local 

Rule 230(l). That deadline has passed, and no response has been filed.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that on or before thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s motion for stay. (ECF No. 44.) 

Plaintiff should specifically address whether any discovery responses that have not yet been provided 

are needed for responding to the motion for summary judgment. Any request for an extension of time 

to comply with this order will require a showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01100-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2