Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773-15/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

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11cv01773 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S 

DEPOSITION VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 65)

Plaintiff Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action 

on October 25, 2011. 

This action is proceeding on First Amendment retaliation claims and due process claims 

against Defendants Holland, Steadman, Gutierrez, Noyce, Tyree, Gentry, Eubanks, Medrano and 

Holman.

On November 26, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on failure to state a 

claim and exhaustion. On April 10, 2014, the Court converted the motion into a motion for 

summary judgment and ordered the parties to notify the Court whether additional discovery is 

needed within thirty (30) days. 

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 68 Filed 05/08/14 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

On May 7, 2014, Defendants filed a request to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition via 

videoconference. While such a request is usually granted, general discovery has not yet opened 

in this action. Defendants do not state whether Plaintiff’s deposition is requested under Rule 

56(d), and they do not indicate that the deposition would be limited to exhaustion issues.

Accordingly, without such information, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 68 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 2