Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06735/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06735-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff’s motion is titled “Motion of Certification for Order to Compel Discovery.” 

On June 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of his motion, which the Court

has considered as well.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY ROBERT GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

G. STEWART, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-6735 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY;

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(Docket Nos. 16 & 17)

On October 30, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican

Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various PBSP employees. On January 5, 2007, the Court

ordered the complaint served upon defendants and scheduled dispositive motions. 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed June 18, 2007, to compel discovery.1

Plaintiff may file a motion to compel discovery only after he satisfies the “meet and confer”

requirements of the discovery rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A); L. R. 37-1(a). It is

clear from plaintiff’s motion that he has not done so. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to

compel is hereby DENIED.

Also before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed June 20, 2007, to stay discovery. 

Defendants state they will be filing, on or before the July 5, 2007 deadline, a dispositive

motion asserting, inter alia, the defense of qualified immunity. As a general rule, a district

Case 3:06-cv-06735-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

court should stay discovery until the issue of qualified immunity is resolved. Crawford-El v.

Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery is hereby GRANTED and all

discovery is hereby STAYED pending the court’s resolution of defendants’ dispositive

motion. If defendants fail to file such motion by July 5, 2007, or file such motion but fail to

include therein the defense of qualified immunity, the stay is deemed VACATED as of said

date.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 16 and 17.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06735-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 2