Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03069/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03069-10/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 ROBERT GORTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3069 LKK GGH P

vs.

TODD, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On April 30, 2010, defendants Todd, Martinez, Naseer, Hawkins, Smith, Nale and

Williams filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to stay

the motion for summary judgment as plaintiff had “not been granted any Order for discovery” for

these defendants. Plaintiff is confused. Plaintiff does not need permission from the court to

conduct discovery. Plaintiff seems to be referring to the court’s May 28, 2010, Discovery and

Scheduling Order that described generally how discovery is conducted and referenced another set

of defendants. Doc. 21. The court does not issue an Order each time a defendant answers the

complaint. The defendants who plaintiff did not conduct discovery on, answered the complaint

approximately 10 days after the court issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order on May 28,

2010, for the other set of defendants. 

/////

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 74 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff has not supplied an adequate explanation on why he decided not to

commence discovery against these defendants over the course of the last year or why plaintiff has

waited until now to request permission to conduct discovery when defendant have just filed a

motion for summary judgment. On July 22, 2009, plaintiff file a request concerning the status of

another defendant, H. Rad. Doc. 27. On August 4, 2009, the court issued an Order explaining

that defendant H. Rad had previously answered the complaint and plaintiff could conduct

discovery on defendant Rad until November 6, 2009. Doc. 28. Defendant H. Rad answered the

complaint less than two weeks before the instant defendants answered who plaintiff has not

conducted discovery on, yet for some unexplained reasons plaintiff chose not pursue discovery

on these defendants or inquire to the court for status.

Moreover, plaintiff has not provided any specific information concerning what

discovery he needs from these defendants, simply stating he is at a disadvantage. As plaintiff has

not explained what discovery he will be requesting, the court will only provide a limited time for

plaintiff and these defendants to conduct discovery. No extensions will be granted. The court

will also vacate the April 30, 2010, motion for summary judgment and defendants will be

provided an opportunity to re-notice the summary judgment motion at a later date. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The April 30, 2010, motion for summary judgment (Doc. 71) is vacated and

defendants will be provided an opportunity to re-notice the motion at a later date;

2. The motion to stay (Doc. 72) is vacated;

3. Plaintiff and defendants Todd, Martinez, Naseer, Hawkins, Smith, Nale and

Williams may conduct discovery upon each other until August 18, 2010; any motion to compel

shall be filed by that date; all requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34 or 36

shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date. No extensions will be granted.

/////

/////

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 74 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. Plaintiff’s May 19, 2010, motion for an extension to file a reply to summary

judgement is denied. Plaintiff shall reply to the motion for summary judgment when then the

motion is re-noticed.

DATED: May 21, 2010

 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH: AB

gort3069.ord2

Case 2:08-cv-03069-LKK-AC Document 74 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3