Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00578/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00578-15/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

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

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0578 MCE EFB P

vs.

R. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that he was the victim of excessive force and inadequate medical

care. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff fails to state a claim

upon which relief could be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They have also moved to stay

discovery until the court resolves their motions to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). For the

reasons explained below, the court grants the motions to stay discovery.

A federal district court may, in the course of discovery, “make any order which justice

requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A court may direct that “disclosure or discovery may

be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2). The party seeking to limit discovery must demonstrate “good cause”

Case 2:06-cv-00578-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 11/27/07 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

therefor. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Such cause exists when the court “is convinced that the plaintiff

will be unable to state a claim for relief.” See Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir.

1981); B.R.S. Land Investors v. United States, 596 F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1978) (court may

deny discovery where it believes plaintiff will not be able to state a claim for relief).

Here, defendants Felker, Runnels, Roche and Rohlfing have moved to dismiss for

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. Despite those pending motions, which may dispose of this

action, plaintiff has served numerous discovery requests on the defendants. He served on

defendants Felker and Runnels interrogatories delving into their responsibilities as supervisors

and their knowledge of the alleged conditions to which plaintiff was subjected. He served on

defendant Roche interrogatories asking about his litigation history, his responsibilities as a

prison physician and his knowledge about plaintiff’s allegations. Likewise, he served on

defendant Rohlfing a set of interrogatories. Plaintiff also has served defendants with requests to

produce documents, none of which appear to relate to how these defendants were involved in the

events giving rise to this action. If the pending motions to dismiss are granted, there will be no

need to respond to the discovery requests. The court has reviewed defendants’ motions to

dismiss and finds that they have merit. Thus, the court finds that an order to stay discovery until

the court finally resolves the motions to dismiss is justified.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The October 24, 2007, motion for a protective order filed by Runnels, Felker and

Roche is granted;

2. The October 25, 2007, motion for a protective order filed by Rohlfing is granted;

3. Defendants Runnels, Felker, Roche and Rohlfing need not respond to plaintiff’s

discovery requests or otherwise engage in discovery pending the district judge’s order on their

motions to dismiss.

Dated: November 27, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00578-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2