Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00858/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00858-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DUANE FRANKLIN, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. VILLAGRANA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1: 13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND

DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR STATUS AND 

CONTINUANCE

(ECF No. 56)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 7.) The action proceeded

on a retaliation claim against Defendants Ruiz and Villagrana. (ECF Nos. 14 & 17.) On 

February 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to grant 

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies (ECF Nos. 37 & 39.) and also granted Defendant 

Villagrana’s motion to strike (ECF No. 48.). On March 25, 2015, the District Court 

adopted those Findings and Recommendations and closed the case. (ECF Nos. 54 & 

55.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for status and for a discovery continuance. 

(ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff contends that he objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 57 Filed 05/07/15 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

and Recommendations, but has yet to receive a ruling on those objections. Therefore, 

he seeks to extend the discovery deadline.

As noted above, the District Court reviewed the parties’ objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and issued an order adopting the 

recommendation to grant Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 54.) It 

appears that Plaintiff has not received that order. Therefore, the Clerk’s Office will be 

ordered to re-serve a copy of that order on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff also seeks an extension of the discovery cut-off date. However, this 

matter is closed and judgment has been entered in favor of Defendants. (ECF No. 55.) 

No further discovery is permissible. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ordered that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for status and to extend the discovery cut-off date is 

GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. This order provides Plaintiff with 

the requested status of the case. The case is closed. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery is DENIED.

2. The Clerk’s Office shall serve upon Plaintiff a copy of the District Court’s 

adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations filed 

on March 25, 2015. (ECF No. 54.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00858-AWI-MJS Document 57 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 2