Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470-10/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHIRLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO 

STAY DISCOVERY AND VACATE 

DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION

DEADLINES

(ECF No. 43)

Plaintiff Ricky L. Thomas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant DeGough for deliberate indifference in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On April 19, 2024, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the 

deadline for completion of all discovery for December 19, 2024, and the deadline for filing all 

dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) for

February 27, 2025. (ECF No. 31.) The deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies was extended to October 25, 2024. (ECF No. 40.)

On October 25, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff’s opposition is 

currently due on or before November 18, 2024. Local Rule 230(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) and 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 46 Filed 11/18/24 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

27

28

2

6(d).

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order to stay discovery 

and vacate discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, filed November 14, 2024. (ECF No. 43.) 

Defendant moves to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate the discovery and dispositive 

motion deadlines in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order pending resolution of 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (Id.) Plaintiff has not yet 

filed a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. 

Local Rule 230(l).

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Defendant states that the motion should be granted because the pending motion for 

summary judgment may resolve the action entirely, the Court can rule on the pending motion for 

summary judgment without discovery, and it would be a waste of resources to require Defendant 

to engage in any merits-based discovery before the exhaustion motion is decided. (ECF No. 43.)

Having considered Defendant’s moving papers, the Court finds good cause to modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order to stay merits-based discovery and to vacate the discovery and 

dispositive motion deadlines. The Court finds it would be an efficient use of the resources of the 

Court and the parties to address any exhaustion issues prior to reaching the merits of this action. 

The Court further notes that a stay of merits-based discovery does not prevent the parties from 

conducting any further discovery needed to address the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his 

administrative remedies, particularly in light of the pending deadline for the filing of Plaintiff’s 

opposition. Finally, the Court finds that the relief granted here will not result in prejudice to 

Plaintiff.

///

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 46 Filed 11/18/24 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to stay merits-based discovery and vacate discovery and dispositive 

motion deadlines, (ECF No. 43), is GRANTED;

2. Merits-based discovery (not including discovery related to the issue of exhaustion) is

STAYED;

3. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; and

4. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of 

the pending motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaustion administrative 

remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 46 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 3