Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01340-23/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING

RESOLUTION OF PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL

(Doc. 82)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT IN

LIGHT OF STAY

(Doc. 98)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 11, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of

the court’s order denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. This action shall be stayed

pending resolution of plaintiff’s appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Once plaintiff’s appeal is resolved, the

court will issue an amended scheduling order setting new amended pleading, discovery, and pre-trial

dispositive motion deadlines. 

While this case is stayed, there will be no further discovery and both plaintiff and defendants

are relieved on any obligation to respond to outstanding discovery requests. Once the stay is lifted,

plaintiff and defendants will be given thirty days within which to serve responses to any outstanding

discovery requests. Defendants’ second request for an extension of time to respond to discovery is

moot in light of this order and shall be denied on that ground. The court notes that plaintiff opposed

///

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 101 Filed 09/12/07 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

27

28

2

the request but plaintiff has made no showing of any actual prejudice and plaintiff’s argument of

undue delay is not persuasive in light of the fact that there is an appeal pending in this case.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is STAYED pending resolution of plaintiff’s appeal;

2. The court will issue an amended scheduling order setting new amended pleading,

discovery, and pre-trial dispositive motion deadlines once the appeal is resolved and

the stay is lifted; and

3. Defendants’ request for an extension of time to serve responses to plaintiff’s

discovery requests, filed August 31, 2007, is DENIED as moot in light of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01340-LJO-GSA Document 101 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2