Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01089/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01089-22/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

Docket number 85 and number 86 are identical motions. It appears that the same

1

motion has been entered twice on the docket sheet.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:06-cv-1089 ALA (P)

vs.

W.J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Four motions are pending before this Court.

I

On July 9, 2008, Mr. Johnson filed a motion requesting the Court to extend the deadline

to file motions to compel (Doc. Nos. 85 and 86). Good cause appearing, the Court grants this

1

request. 

II

On July 10, 2008, Mr. Johnson filed a “Motion for Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Order of

Service by U.S. Marshall [sic].” (Doc. No. 87). Defendants are hereby ordered to file a response

Case 1:06-cv-01089-ALA -GSA Document 89 Filed 07/17/08 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

to Plaintiff’s motion by July 25, 2008.

III

Mr. Johnson filed a “Motion for Permission to Proceed In Forma Paupers [sic] on

Appeal” (Doc. No. 46). Mr. Johnson filed two other similar motions, both of which were denied

(Doc. No. 62). Therefore, this motion is denied as moot.

IV

Per the Court’s June 20, 2008, order (Doc. No. 79), Defendants were required to file a

response by July 10, 2008, to Plaintiff’s “Motion to Appoint Expert.” Defendants have failed to

respond. 

///// 

Accordingly, good cause showing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Mr. Johnson’s motion to extend the time to file motions to compel discovery 

(Docs. 85 and 86) is GRANTED. The parties have up to and including August

28, 2008, to file motions to compel.

2. Defendants are ordered to file a response to Mr. Johnson’s “Motion for

Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Order of Service by U.S. Marshall [sic]” (Doc. No.

87) by July 25, 2008.

3. Mr. Johnson’s “Motion for Permission to Proceed In Forma Paupers [sic] on

Appeal” (Doc. 46) is DENIED as moot.

4. Defendants are ordered to show cause by July 25, 2008, why they should not be

sanctioned for failure to respond the Court’s June 20, 2008, order (Doc. No. 79).

/////

DATED: July 16, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:06-cv-01089-ALA -GSA Document 89 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 2