Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01814-23/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

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on the 

following cognizable claims in the Third Amended Complaint: under the First Amendment for 

retaliation against Defendants Lt. Goss, Lt. Gallagher, and Officer Langler; under the Eighth 

Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition against PA Byers and Lt. 

Gallagher; and for his claim of a violation of his right to due process against Lt. Goss. (Docs. 31, 42, 

47.) 

On July 22, 2014, Defendants Gallagher and Goss filed a motion for summary judgment per 

Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc), asserting 

the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to 

filing this action. (Doc. 69.)

On August 18, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for a protective order to stay of discovery 

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. GOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01814-LJO-JLT (PC) 

ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

(Doc. 79)

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 86 Filed 08/20/14 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

pending resolution of their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 79.) It is of note, that having been 

notified of his requirements to oppose the motion for summary judgment, the same day that 

Defendants filed their motion to stay discovery, Plaintiff filed an opposition rather than request 

postponement of consideration of Defendants' motion to conduct further discovery on the exhaustion 

issue under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docs. 80-82.) 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for discovery to be stayed pending 

resolution of motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust, filed by Defendants Gallagher and 

Goss on August 18, 2014 (Doc. 79), is GRANTED and all discovery is STAYED in this action

pending the resolution of the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01814-DAD-JLT Document 86 Filed 08/20/14 Page 2 of 2