Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02276/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02276-6/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

CARL DAVID WHITE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery. Plaintiff does not claim

that defendants have failed to participate in the discovery process. Rather, plaintiff seeks a court

order directing defendants to respond to his discovery requests.

Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests

and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should

be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the

court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties

shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion for discovery is disregarded.

On July 13, 2005, plaintiff also filed a motion for a pretrial conference. Pending

before the court is defendants’ May 19, 2005, motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 08/16/05 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

2

administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim. At this point in the litigation, a pretrial

conference is premature. Accordingly, plaintiff’s July 13, 2005, motion for a pretrial conference

is denied.

On July 13, 2005, plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment. Because

defendants’ motion to dismiss, as described above, is pending, plaintiff’s summary judgment

motion is premature as well. Accordingly, the court will vacate plaintiff’s motion and will

renotice it following resolution of defendants’ motion, if appropriate.

On July 29, 2005, defendants filed a request for extension of time to respond to

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Because plaintiff’s motion is vacated, defendants’ request

for extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 13, 2005, motion for discovery is disregarded;

2. Plaintiff’s July 13, 2005, motion for a pretrial conference is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s July 13, 2005, summary judgment motion is vacated without

prejudice to its renewal at a later time;

4. Defendants’ July 29, 2005, request for extension of time is denied as

unnecessary.

DATED: 8/16/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

whi2276.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 37 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2