Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01773-12/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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Document 55)

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.

Defendants’ November 26, 2013, Motion to Dismiss is currently pending. 

On March 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order to relieve them of 

their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Court deems the matter suitable 

for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 59 Filed 04/02/14 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

As Defendants point out, a motion to dismiss is pending, and therefore a discovery order 

has not yet issued. This means that discovery has not opened and Plaintiff may not serve 

discovery at this juncture without a prior showing that such discovery is necessary. According to 

Defendants, Plaintiff has served written discovery without prior Court approval. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a protective order is GRANTED. Defendants are 

relieved of their obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s January 23, 2014, discovery requests at this 

time.1 If this action survives the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will open discovery by 

formal order after an answer is filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

 

1 The motion states that Plaintiff served discovery on January 23, 2013. However, since service had not yet been 

initiated at that time, the Court infers that this a typographical error, and the Court date is January 23, 2014. 

Case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB Document 59 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 2